Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-07-07
COURT OF APPEALS.

COURT OF APPEALS,
Collins VS.. State, from Callahan
county. On former appeal, the judg-
ment in this case was reversed, be-
cause the judgment nisi did not con-
form to the statute II Ct. App, 1856.
Thereupon states attorney below
caused new citations to issue to the
two witnesses-service being had in
one case and waived in the other.
States attorney then moved to amend
judgment nisi by inserting words pre-
scribed by article AL, &. G.. p. APP
pellant accepted service, but no SER
vice has been had on T., principal in
recognizauce. Exceptions to motion
aveIred that court mad no power to
amend judgment nisi, inasmuch as
the matter sought 10 be made was
matter of law; that the motion had
never been served on T., the principal.
The first exception was not well taken,
the rule being, that a court has power
to amend its judgment after the ex-
piration Of the term TO count the mis-
takes, or to add omitted clauses in
order to give effect, whenever there Is
anything In judgment by which tn
amend. - Tex. Supp POI ] The second
exception was well taken; there should
have been service on the plincipal.
When on the face of the bond offered
in evidence there appears an alteration,
1t devolves on the state To satisfactorily
explain the same. IA CT. App 2l3
Reversed and renamed. White, T.. j,
Iollicoiter vs.. the State, from Hill
county. When conviction is had upor
the testimony of self-confes sed &C
complete, 1t cannot stand unless cor.
roborated by the evidence from Other
sources, which tends TO connect tn,
defendant with the commission of the
otlense. 1t will not suffice If ii merely
shows that the offense WIS committed
1T was not error for the court to sub.
init to the jury in charge the question
whether or not the witness is an ac.
complete, but it should, in the same
connection, instruct closely as to what
facts would constitute the witness all
accomplish. The verdict. b-ing I'm.
supported by the evidence, the court
below should have granted a new trial.
reversed and remanded. Wilson, j
Weeden, collector, etc, VS.. Martin
error. from Robertson county. The
provisions of art. Il, Revised Stat.
utes, do not apply 10 any city until
such city, 10y its council, has accepted
the same in accordance with art. $40
sec. "a BY art. 400 ii is provided tina,
city so accepting said title shall moi
be required to give bond ia any sui, o,
proceeding in which the city is 8
party, It's liability being fixed by said
tue without such bond. Where, in
an appeal by one who acts in an ELI
Gent capacity, this defense is set 10 Il
motion TO dismiss, because of want OF
appeal bond, 1t must be aflirniatively
shown That the city has accepted the
terms OF the title in the manner pre-
scrloed. This not having been done
motion Is well taken, and the writ OF
error Is dismissed. White, p. J.
bievips VS.. the State, from Brown
county. The conviction in this cas-.
was Tor the theft of "a horse, and Tho
penalty imposed was five years in The
penitentiary. The Judgment is al
nrmed, because first 1t does not an
pear from the application for continu
ance thst the evidence sought thereb,
was probably true. and hence ther.
was no error IN refusing acoutinuanee
second, because the court did not err,
IN reJecting the testimony of A. NJ. r.
ne Deing clearly a party TO the theft
ahu oeing therefore incompetent 4,
testify. Affirmed. ="
Houston Il Texas Central Railway
20. VS.. Wooten, Boatright & Co. from
Brazos county. The motion 4,
thls case Is to dismiss the apneai
an inspection of the rrcorf
ulscioses that the amount i'm
VOWED In the original controyers,
IN 1he Justices was less than twen,,
collars, The appeal, therefore wn,
properly dismissed, and the apnea
from that court to this, prosec,,,a,
irom such supposed error, must also =,
Texas d Pacific Railway Comnan,
vs. Jones, from Grayson COUNTY I'M
~ motion TO affirm the indon,a m1
rendered below upon certificais wiz,
re,erence to the merits. The certia
cate must be dismissed for wen ann y
jurisdiction of the court. it annsar,,,,
u the record that the amount i,,v v",n
IN the litigation was less than SIN,
VI sach amount the court has no n n
peliate jurisdiction. ~
Bryant VS.. the State, appeal fen,
nains county. Indictment for th.i
.eserioed the property stolen as .on
OF twenty dollars, current monan anu :
| the uited States OIL a. Ss v