The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-05-08

1
$50, As presented by the record it is
purely fac, case in which there was con
| tilct OF evidence. ana the Jury having
passed thereon in the absence OF manifest
error we will not disturb the verdict. The
motion for a new trial on the ground Of
newly discovered evidence was properly
overruled, for il the evidence was material
must have been known so TO be by appel
liant. Affirmed.
Shelton VS., the State; from Hays county.
This is an appeal from con-
vlction for the theft Of COW.
The first ground referring to the
evidence sought by continuance, the
| court held that II was not probably true,
and therefore the motion for continuance
was properly overruled. >. The remarks OF
the district attorney being in reply to re-
marks made by defendants counsel and
We're not material.
Devices VS.. the State from Wilson county.
This is an appeal from conviction for
wlifully obstructing public road. Two
questions are noticed-l. The charge of the
| court appears to be correct in all its mate
rial requirements. ., The evidence Is am
ply sufficient TO support the verdict and
judgment, and it is affirmed.
Schneider Il Bro, VS. Frost Il Co.; from
Grayson county. This is suit for the
value of certain window blinds. The evil
bal contract was admissible. The charge of
the court was correct, iull, fair
and impartial ana applicable to the evil
dence, which was amply sufficient to sus-
tam the verdict and the Judgment, and ii
is affirmed.
Undertake ct al vs. the State;from Will
son county. This is conviction Tor OBJ
structlng public road. l. The objection
| to the charge as being on the weight of the
evidence because IL instructed the jury AS
to what would constitute public road is
untenahle. This charge was necessary and
was not on the weight of the evidence.
:. The evidence is amply sufficient to prove
that defendants Nlliully obstructed the
ROAD and the judgment Is affirmed.
Graves VS., the State, from tol0l ado county.
! Opinion by Wilson, ]. 1t is never con
petent Tor the prosecution tn show, in the
first instance against the defendant, that
Inc person slain was OF good and peaCeable
character, But such evidence may be given
in rebuLtal, II the opposite has been tesu-
! fled to, tor the defense. While the court
erred in renting the evidence, yet the
evidence of defendants guilt is so over
WhelmnSly conclusive, that its admission
was an error of so trivial II character as to
be OF no appreciable consequence, and
would not warrant "a reversal of the iudg.
ment, &c Court Appeals, l2l; s Court Ap.
peals, AZ Affirmed.
Texas d Pacific Railway VS.. Norton from
Dallas county. Opinion by Hurt, j. Suit
brought in Justices court, and judgment for
appellee, upon appeal to county court, for
the first time, appellant ii ed a counter
affidavit denying the correctness of pain-
till account, which, upon motion, was
stricken out. Held error. This court has
| held that no new cause of action ca be SET
up by plaintiff and that no sct-olI, nor
counter claims, which was not pleaded in
the justice count can be pleaded in the
county court. ConCeeding The necessity of
counter affidavit defendant by il did not al.
tempt to rely upon a set off or counter
claim, and the motion therefore was i'm
properly sustained, Reversed and re-
manded
Williams vs.. the State; from Colorado
county. Opinion by Wilson, j. In trial
for homicide, where there is evidence tend
ing TO show that in committing the hom.
eide, the defendant acted in self defense, or
under the reasonable apprehension that his
lite was in danger, or that he was in danger
of serious bodily harm by reason of some
act OF deceased then done, indicating an in
tenlion to kill or do serious bodily harm,
or that he acted under the influence of
passion without deiberation, he is entitled
TO prove in explanation, excavation or JUS
|
OF the deceased as being that of a violent
and dangerous man, or his general charac.
ter IN any other respect, which which would
tend to determine the grade of the homi-
eide by showing the intent actuating the
defendant in its commission. Reversed and
remanded.
Mapes vs.. the State; from Live Oak coun-
ty. Opinion by Hurt, j. The Indictment
was filed March lith 1882. On the 18th of
the same month defendant was required to
announce ready, when he moved for con
tinuance to procure the testimony of wit.
ness residing in Live Oak county, but who
prior 10 the presentation of the Indictment
had gone to, and was then temporarily alb
sent, in Preside county. That no process
was Issued because it could not reach the
witness in time for the trial. Held, as the
facts expected to be given were both mate.
rial and probably true, continuance
should have been granted. The evidence
fails to support tie verdict. Reversed and
remand,d.
Behreens VS.. the State; from Williamson
county, Opinion by Hurt, i. Appellant
was convicted for pulling down. breaking
and injuring fence. Held, the proper
rule in such cases. is, the true inquiry in
regard to the possession should be confined
TO the question of the actual guilt and
peaceabie possession, and not the rightful
possession OF the fence and such being true,
The charge, viz; 1.-The title to the land is
not question for your consideration, only
so far AS to show to whom belongs the
rightinl possession of the fence" is not ap-
plicable TO any state of case, and although
there is no statement of facts, vet we must
reverse. Reserved and remanded.