The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-26
THE HIGHER COURTS.
COURT OF APPEALS.

NN'Ni VI Arr "a LSs
Murphy ct al. VS.. the State; from
Franklin county. Opinion by White, y.
j. Where the conditions of forfeited
bail bond recitod in substance that do
PENDANT was arrested by virtue Of a ca
piss issued by the clerk OF the district
court, on an information filed by a iuy.
tice oftho peace, charging him with ag
gravated assault and battery, if said do
tendant appeared al the courthouse,
then aud there to answer 60
lhe said accusation preferred against
MN IN the said Indictment etc. Held.
Not To show that defendant was ne
cused OF any o1onso against the law
Reversed and dismissed.
Taylor VS.. tho State; from Harris
county, Opinion by Wilson, / Tho
evidence showed that defendant went 10
the house of Datnight, called him out OF
his bed, assaulted and knocked him
GOWN without any provocutiou, aud
when D. had He'd into the house defend
ant threatened TO break the door
of the house and burn the
house and kill him; that,
armed with gun, he was about to mt
his threat into execution, when ID. an.
poured AT tina door also armed and both
no aud defendant fired instantly at each
other. IL also showed malice toward ID.
arising out Of a misunderstanding.
! Held: Sufficient TO demand aconyictibn
for assault with intent to murder, and IA
be such evidence as would not have
Warranted charge on mHnslaughter
Affirmed.
Payne VS.. tho State; from Smith
! county Opinion by Wilson, /. II one
I
which has about II an insufficient fence
the offence committed Is that charged
IN Art. $50, =. O., and where de.
fendant was charged with the
offence named in Art. $50, Z. c., AM
there was evidence tending to show
thht the COW was shot while In defend
ants enclosure, it was error for m.
court To rciuSe charge to the Jury tina,
II the COW was In delendaut's enclosure
when she was shot they should aruuit
Reversed and reniauded.
McAico vs.. the State; from Navarro
county Opinion by Hurt, ]. Evidrnc,
SHOWS that a witness once harbored
horse thieves Is not admissible for In,
| purpose Of impeaching his testimony
Where the defence relied upon a mr..
chase OF, aud u bill of sale for, the stolen
from ono w, the court correctly
chArgod, IN substance, that 1t defend.
ant purchased the animals from w. and
tonk nnd held possession bV virtue nl
such purchase aud bill of sale, although
4 W. Stole the animal, to Ncuuit
defendant. But if the COW was stolen
nom w, and purchased by defendant
who know az the time that IL was stolen,
anu the auimN Afterwards got out ~
defendants possession and came int,
that OF the true owner, aud defendant
I lIAllHnlnntlY 4 a.
sion OF the owner, Knowing at the i'm,
OF the purchase of, ut the time Of IA,
taxing that the animal was stolen, such
taking constituted theft. Afiirmed.
Long w, the state; from Hunt COUNTY
opinion 10y White, y, /. This is ON tie
! applicant 10 establish the exercise ol
uiligencc IN support OF an application
for continuance. When the defendant
IL relying upon the service OF a snh
ponA, his application for continuance
10 oe good In point of diligence shunld
aulrmauvely show that tho witness was
TN attendance on the day set for taking
r., Arts. 4S2, lSs) For thu err,
OF the court in permitting the pr,..
ecuting attorney to read ~ eyidepe.
10 the jury tho atlldavlts or complaints
upon which the Information WINS
founded, the judgment IL secured and
cause reminded Reversed and N.
mandcd.
Lindsey ct al. vs.. the State; from Hon.
kins county. Opinion by White, u.
a writ OF scire lacias should recte tfr
presentment of an indictment, tho lssu.
ance OF acapias, defendants arrest, tho
execution OF the recognizance, the con.
dition of the same, the breach ofthe con,
ditions and the entry OF the Judgment
nisi, otherwise IL IN fatally deiectiye.
The suretieson n bail bond are released
rom liailitv by second arrest and
Dali OF their principal on tho same in
uictment. Reversed and remanded.
hoperis ". tho Slate; from KAUFMAN
county. Opinion by Hurt, 1. Con,ic-