The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-19

hhfuWafes MCfunls " 10, NNmmlskiOn McfNnan
change: General W, L. Cabell. Msyor Of nalss
Rulings of the court with reference
10 the pleadings which did not effect
the ultimate rights Of the party, Is not
ground for reversal. Hardy VS.. Deheon,
5 Texas, BID. The court erred in excluding
the evidence of Brown as TO other sales
made Of a similar character Is in this case.
Whether the evidence involves the fraudu-
lent sale or conveyance ofproperty, evidence
OF other like conveyances by the same par
ties, at or about the same time are admlssi-
BILE, upon the ground that where trsnsac-
tions of similar character executed by the
same parties are closely connected in times
the reasonable inference is that they pro-
coed from the said motive. Reversed and
remanded.
Acers VS.. Mayne ct al; from Clay county
Opinion by West The court erred in
excluding from the consideration Of the
jury appellants claim Of title to the land In
suit devised through the Buffalo Bayou,
Braxos 4 Colorado railway and Galveston.
Houston 4 San Antonio railway and its sue
cessors. Had not the purchasers OF
the sold out company deemed II best to
change the name OF the corporation,
there would have been no necessity
for the purchaser of the land in
suit to have proceeded further, in develop
ing the right of action than TO have ex-
hibited legal title TO the land in suit, in
the corporation by name, and aconvey ance
rom such corporation, or from the lawful
ana recognized successor of such sold out
| corporation by its original name to himself.
The purchasers of the sold out corporation
having, by special act OF the legislature,
changed the name Of such sold out corpo-
ration, and appellants having shown the
purchase and the special act as above being
proper evidence to show the change OF
name, the court erred in excluding the
title OF appellants. Reversed and Re-
COURT OF APPEALS.
Judge Irwin vs.. the state from Lamar
, county. Appellant appeals from = con.
viction of murder of the second degree and
his punishment assessed at fifteen years
imprisonment. Three questions are pre-.
sented: First the validity Of the indict-
ment; second the sutficiency Of the evil
dence, and third, the correctness OF the
courts charge. Held: The indictment is in
all respects, good and sufficient, the evil
dence amply supports the verdict, the
charge OF the court is correct in every ma
terial respect, and the judgement is af.
| tirmed.
| Morgan vs.. the State, from Fort Bend
county. This is an appeal from the con-
yicti0n OF the theft Of q $50 bill from one
| Hopkins. The theft was committed while
both parties were confined in Jail. The
only questions presented relate to cor
RICHNESS OF the charge and the sufficiency OF
the evidence. Held: The charge of the
court is full and correct, and submitted the
law applicable to the facts with Impartial.
ty. The evidence Is very conclusive and
amply sustains the verdict. The record
shows no error, and the judgment is af
| firmed.
| Stovall Il Lennox vs.. Forsgard
from McLennan county. Appellee
sued appellants, as partners for the sale
OF threshing machine which he had sold
them. Appellants answered denying the
existence Of partnership and alleging
want OF authority in Lennox to bind Sto
vail, etc. Judgment for Forsgard for thu
value of the machine. Held, this beinl
purely fact case, and having been fairly
submitted to the Jury and their verdict be
affirmed.
Morrison vs.. Branham OF al; from Hi
county. Judgment was rendered in favo
OF appellees against appellant il
the Justice court. A pellant car
ried his cause to the county cour
by writ OF certioari. After announce
ment for ready in the county cour
appellees moved 10 dismiss the cause fo
want OF merit in the petition for .certioari
The court sustained the motion and dis
missed the cause. Held: The certeroar
was properly dismissed because the petition
showed no merits. Affirmed.
Norris vs.. the State, from Limeston,
county; APPELLANT appeals from q conviction
for aggravated assault and battery upor
one Glass, the fine being as
sessed at s25. Two questions ar,
presented First. The sufiiciency
of the courts charge, and sscond, the adj
instability OF evidence Of threats. Held
The charge OF the court was not excepted
to, yet had it been we are of the opinion
that there was no such error in II as wa,
calculated to iujure defendants rights. The
evidence as to defendants threats agains,
Glass made previously to tho difficulty
were admissible. Affirmed.
Morgan VS.. the State; from Fort Bend
county. Appellant appeals from con
viction Tor burglary by breaking
into box car at night. Held: A
the copy of the way-bil objected TO is moi
set out either In the statement of facts, OF
bill OF exceptions, and as we are not In
formed what IL contains, we cannot say
that its admission was error. The charge
of the court sufficiently defined theft. and
there being no error apparent, the judg.
ment is affirmed.
Sommers vs.. the State; from Orange
county. This is an appeal from convc.
tion for theft of $275 the property Of Mrs
an error duly and properly entered up dur.
ing term time, granting leave to make
up and file statement of facts within
ten days after ADJOURNMENT yet such state
ment was not filed until twelve days after.
wards and therefore cannot be considered
and In the absence of q statement OF facts
there is no question that can be considered
Affirmed.
Houston vs.. the State, from Denton
county. On rehearing. At former day
Of this term II was held that the court did
not err in It's charge that "if defendant die
shoot and kill deceased, but II the killing
acquit him, or If you have any reason
able doubt as to whether II wal
accidental, or not, you will acqult him.
and further that the act Of the Seventeenth
legislature, chap. IA, p. 0, was but delara
ton OF what the law was al the time Of Ia
enactment, and that the utmost extent that
cases have gone, Is to admit evidence oil
drunkenness only for the purpose OF re-
ducipg the crime from the frat to the second
degree, aud not as complete defence.
After another careful consideration OF the
| TtCoIu huu VI tuo law uppuChuio 10 the
case, the court still adheres 10 the opinion
formerly rendered and the judgment IL
affirmed. Rehearing refused.
Parks We. the state. from Parker county
appellant was convicted Of N urdering one
Hogan and sentenced to fifty years impris
onment, The only material question rails
ed as to the courts action In refusing Ia
allow proof that Hogan when drunk was Of
Of turbulent and violent disposition: He.
about town and sometimes got drunk. On
the night Of the killing Parks father and
his little brother were in the saloon and
Hogan was drunk. Hogan walked up and
tried to shake hands with the kid" as he
termed the boy. Parks told the boy not Ia
shake hands with 1.-THE id
a scoundrel," some words ensued, when
parba nro,u tod a piuiol md nj, rauad Hasa ;,