The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-02-08

lHH'N.II III|IlI w n ANNIi NNAN w
4 sufficient Il ho Iles one uriei ~ lhni
.imc. and the others viii be IN time u hl'u
before the hearing uf the cause. N't'oh
Iofu.c1. Willie, c }.
synupsls OF Opinions OF the Court OF Az
peals, Galveston Term, 1883.
Brown vs.. the STATE; from Uyaldc county
The form Of an Indictment for thtit pre-
scribed by the act of 1881 entitled, IAN act
to prescribe the forms OF indictment in GER
tam cases, charges no facts, acts or
omissions constituting the oilense OF thett,.
and is therefore unconstitutionall2 CU
App., 30j Ia the case that form is FOL
lowed in the indictment. motion TO
quash was made by appellants counsel,
but oyerrulod by the court, ana appellant
was convicted. This was error in the court
for which the Judgment must be Referred
and there being no valid Indictment the
prosecution is dismissed. Reversed ana
dismissed. White, p.j. .
Warren VS.. the State from hauilhal
county, The record IN this case. fails al
tirmatiyely to show that either appel ant, o.
his attorneys for hun, plead either guilty or
not guilty. The rule which requires plea
to the Indictment is well founded, both IN
reason and in law; without plea there can
he no issue of any kind whatever for the
Jury to pass upon, and without any issue
they cannot LEGALLY find verdict Yalu IN
law upon which Judgment can be entered.
There is, therefore, in the case at par no
valid Judgment for which it must be re.
yersed and the cause remanded. Reversed
and remanded. White, p. ].
Daniels vs.. the State; from wood county.
Appellant appeals from conYlcLion OF as
sault with intent TO murder one Blll Jones.
The evidence supporting the CONVICTION IS
conflicting, but upon two theo les, as pre-
sented. appellant was either guilty. or lnho
cent OF assault with intent to murder. oucn
benz the case, therefore, the court dlu not
err In refusing to charge upon manslanghter
md apgravated assault. The motion for
new trial made by appellant on the ground
of newly discovered evidence was properly
oyerruled, AS the affidavit OF appellant 10
the motion was wholly insufficient, ana
failed to show due and proper diligence.
Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Foster VS.. Holmes, from Fdyette county.
On appeal from the justices 10 the county
court appellee made the Oath III lorna pau
peris as follows: Comes e " who, be-
in.r sworn. upon oath deposes aud says that
he desires to appeal from the Judgment OF
the Justice court, TO the county court ana
that he is unable to pay costs, and tuat lie
is not able to give an appeal bond as re-
auired by law. Held, thus oath in lorna
pauperis is not in compliance with the stat
ute and therefore neither TINS court nor Inc
county court had jurisdiction To try the ap-
peal, and it is therefore dismissed. Appeal
dismissed. Wilson, j..
Mireller VS.. the State from Cameron Coun-
tv, Every convicted defendant has a right
appeal, yet he cannot be considered con-
yicted until final Judgment has been rem;
dered against him, and When tue RECORD
fails to show any proper final Judgment III
the trial court, the appeal will here be dis
missed; Il CT. App. 2ol) In =. y. L. ART
19l, the provisions OF "a valid Judgement III
felony cases are set out, among Whlch Is,
t'that the defendant is adjudged guilty OF the
ofIarlse as found by the jury" In this case
The Judgment is wanting in this provision.
the appeal must therefore be dismissed Tor
want of final judgment. Appeal us
missed. White, p
Somerhill VS.. Hancock; from Bowie
county, The county court had jurisdiction
OF he case articles ll6l-62 Revised statutes,
must be construed III connection WIN inc
constitution, from which we determine that
the legislative intent was to give county
courts concurrent jurisdiction over $1,000
"eyclnsiye" of interest. The constitution
comforting the jurisdiction, it would take
an express and clear provision OF law 70
change il. The petition must be helu
sufficient, "yalue received" expressed IA
the note is a sufficient aveTment ot c0nsiu-
Grafton; O1 Texas, 4l2 10 Texas, Al Han
cock having testified 10 facts WITHIN MS Owl
knowledge independent OF any transaction
with deceased, it was not IN violation oil
article 22iS. Revised Statutes. (See Texas
Law Review, Vol. /, No. 3, p 40. Hep') lie
hearing refused. Wilton,
Carroll VS.. the State; from Webb COUNTY.
This is an appeal from conviction lof
keeping a disorderly house upon an lrtor
nation which charges that at the time salu
arcellaLt did then and there unlaw-
fully keep a disorderly house for the pur-
pose of public prostitution and ''asa I'M
mon resort for prostitutes and yagabonds,
and that they are in every way connected
with and concerned in keeping said dlsor-
derly house" cts. Held, this information
Is sufficient, and cannot be said TO be IN
the alternative as the conjunctive conJunc-
ton is used, but beyond this fact II was
NOT necessary to prove that IL was a com
mon resort of yagabonds IL the other. aver
meuts were proven. such was the case,
and the judgment is Alarmed. hurt, J.
Hard VS.. the State; from Dewitt county.
This Is an appeal from conviction for the
theft of a mare and sentence OF i've years
In the penitentiary. Pending the appeal,
the appellant escaped, and after being at
large some time was re-arre>ted and re-
turned into custody. At no Time during
his freedom did he voluntarily return into
The custody OF the officer. The proper am
iayit of escape has been made and IS on lie
.orney.peneral moves TO dismiss the appeal.
Held. the motion being sustained by the !
record il is sustained anG the appeal IL as |
missed. Appeal dismissed. White, p:J,,
Erain a. PEBBLES VS.. the State; from POLK |
Comes the assistant attorney |
reneral and moves the court 10 dismiss Tue |
appeal because appellants have iai.ed u
comply with the rules requiring briefs 10 be |
lied In the court below. The record dis |
'losed thai. while the briefs were properly |
lied In this court, there was no brief hled |
N the court below. Held, the rules gov |
,rniny Ga cases of this character are the |
anne that apply in civil cases, aud a iailure |
o file brisis, as required in the court DeloW,
! good grounds for a dismissal. Appeal
dismissed. Hurt, j.
Lewis W. the State, from San Jacinto |
ounty. This q an appeal from a. Judgment OF
onyiction for forgery. There ~ an instru- |
nent inc 1rporated 10 and made a part OF /
he record which purpOrts 70 be a state
nent Of facts, but the record Is siie { a. TO |
n order Of court granting leave % lie sucn /
tsfement after the aiOurntpent OF court,
nj a. he record shows this statement 10
ave been fled after court adjourned, W
snn1t con sider ID. In the absence OF
fatement Of facts. we fail TO discover an
rror in tue record Of which appellant can
1mplaln. The indictment il good, and the
large Of the court is IN, Kcepiioneb.e, and
he judgement Is Efhrmed. Afhrmed
~ son " the State, from Orange clun-
p Aruellaut las appealed from a cOnFic
on M theft Of $50. the property OF one
II ton Davis. The evidence u bis Euut D.
holly circumsfantial. yet u seems - %
} b. amply sufiic ent - support the yer
let of the Jury, and e. they are the judy
4 the c-efibilify Of The uitnestes and the
-eisht Of testiBOny and Their verdict Doe.
% APPEAR 10 Be clearly erroneous II WI
M ~ digt1rbed The Indictment h good,
- charge Of the court IL full, lair and IN
rcsptionable. and an Inspection Of the
.or,-d fails 20 diae'D-e any error ana the
I. - I. J. - ma william 4