The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-01
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Accurate Synopsis Of Decisions ny the
Appellate Courts.
Cases that Present Some Very Nice
pOinis.
Legal Lore iha, Is Invaluable
COUNT OF ArpEALg.


Appellant was convicted Of The iheit OF
horse, his punishment nfseseed a. BLK year
imprisonment. The record on Tho appel
contains no bill a exceptions, and. upo
inspection. we tinh DO error IN the chRTgl
the Indictment good and sufficient, Tn
accomplice Newsnn, fully oorrobersted q
far 40 was necessary and the evidence am
ply sufficient 10 support the verdict. A
firmed.
Moore vs. the State; from Ellis county
Appellant was convicted OF assault 10 mnl
der one Willism Biush. No question
raised In the record tuat demands con
sidsraiion. The Indictment Is suilicler
tho charge Is Iitsral and correct, ana IN
evidence is am pie aud directly In point
No error appearing Tor which revefaa
n ist be had, the judgment Ia affirmed.
Bender W.. the State; nom Collin county
mo, 1881 Appellant va. convicted TO
aulawfully passing counterfeit money an,
his punishment assessed 81 two and n hal
years i'm prisonment. The record contains
no bill OF exceptions nor statement OF facts
and.in the absense rom the record Of thes,
instruments, the indictment being goot
and sufficient and the charge correct, tn,
judgment must be affirmed.
Ross VS.. the State from Wise county
Appellant was convicted OF the false i'm
priHonment OF one Obenchain, bow about
twelye years Of age. There is no apparent
the Gaze in as 20 the exclusion oil the
evidence offered 10 prove that the boys
mother had placed him with appel ant, and
this question Is not presented In shape Ia
which we can consider II. Affirmed.
Ssndoval We the State; from Bexai
county. Conviction for the theit OF two
mules, tho punishment being assessed at
five wears imprisonment. Although not
excepted TO, yet IL 1t h9d been { II amply
sufficient and the instruction asked by de
PENDANT on circumstentitl evidence was
given. The evidence 10 amply sufficient 10
support the verdict. Appellant and an-
other were found IN possF ssion OF the mules
two days after they were miesed. ihey
claim ed them together, said they had been
working them and wanted TO sell them, and
did sell them, both acting In the sale.
Affirmed.
Ben. Davis VS. the State; from Denton
county. Appellant was arrested on an III
formation charging HIM With unlaTin!ly
pulling down II ieuce, ana ilne OF SlU iui-
posed. AS presented 10 this court, there is
no error apparent o record. The iniormt-
ton 10 sufficient. The charge gtvsn wes
correct and the refusDl OF the i1struclicns
asked was prouer. The evidence rs sufficient
and the judgment 10 affirmed.
Bender We. the State; from Collin county.
mo. 9 0l0). This oppellept wss convicted
In this case Tor uDlsTiully having counter.
ishment was assessed az two years imprison-
ment. The record on tuis nppsel contains
neither statement Of facts nor BILLS OF Cx-
ception and In their Absence the indictment
and the charge OF the curt being unobjec-
tionabie. the Judgment Is affirmed.
Fort Worth & Denver City railway vs..
Brown; from Montague county. This vas
a suit by appellee fer damages for killing
and iniuring stock. Judgment tor 1920.
The record on this appeal contains neither
abatement OF facts, nor bill Of exception
There Ia no apparent error OF record. The
petition Is sufficient on general demur-
rer, and as IL appesrs that the appeal 10
simply for delay, 10 per cent. damages are
awarded appellee. Affirmed.
Bender w. the State; from Collin county.
mo. 2 1881. In this case the appellant was
convicted for uulawluiv passing counterfeit
money, and his punishment assessed at five
years Imprisonment. The record in this, US
in the companion cases, supra, contains
neither statement, bills of exception, nor
any apparent error, snd the Judgment Is
affirmed.
Brockman vs. the State; from Harris
county, Opinion By Wilson. !. Appellant
was convicted for unlswiully purchasing
cattle without taking II OF sole therefor.
Upon the trial, the appellant offered to
prove that he furnished che necessary funds
to another with which to purchase the cat
tie for him; thet the party made the pur-
chase accordingly and received the cattle;
that said party gave him q bill oil sale,
which he offered in evidence, saying,
at the time 1t was the bill of sale he reoeiv-
ed from the vendee Of the cattle. The
court excluded this eviderc5 on the ground
that IL was irrelevant Held: Error. IL the
purchase was made by an agent, ard the
agent received the cattle, when appellant
was not present, the turdfn wac upon the
state to prove that the cattle wera go re-
ceived without bill o. sale, and THE, with
thu consent of the appellant. The venue
of the offence charged by the Indictment
was in the county In which the cattle werc
purchased and received and the record fails
to disclose Snv name In karnes county.
Reversed and remanded.
Burr ya. the State; from Lamar county.
Opinion by Hurt, j. Appellant was con.
victed OF the rape oil Miss Lou Wiiiismsand
his punishment assessed at death. Tbe
evidence uhowed that the victim "a parnlyzed
victim Of the poor farm, was in her own
room when appellant camo and got in BED
with her. She, AT first, supposed 1t was her
aunt, but when her assailans rose upon he.
and beyau to pull un her clothes. she cried
out. He thereupoD Whispered TO her, III
you hollow l will kill you" The indictment
alleged the rspe to have been Affected by
force alone. Query; Gould the stats prove
thess threats made at the time OF the inter
courst? Held: This evidence was leaiti-
mate and admissible. LIST. IL was res
gestp ID. II bore directly upon the lues-
tloa Of consent Sd. 1t showed the intent
of the assailau,; and, 4sh, IL was al i'm
portant fact to be considered in passing upon
the character aud degree OF iorce used.
The charge OF the court being confined To
force alone and the evidence being amply |
suffi cient. the judgment Is affirmed.
Beville VS. the State; from Wise county. |
Opinion by Hurt, !. Appellant, deputy |
marshal Of Decatur, and the marshal, ar
rested one Carter. without warrant, while
Carter WAS into yicsted IN public place with |
in the city limits and in the act of commit
ting breach OF tho peace in the presepce
OF said officers. Carter was c1ufined In
place provided for the detention OF city
prisoners for one hour, when he was re.
leased on giving an appearances bond. When
arrested Carter proposed to give ouch bond
which the officers refused. BY ordinances
breaches OF the peace are made Offences.
This Is a conviction for false imprisonment
based on the above facts. Quaere: Under |
this state Of facts did appellant have the |
right to arrest and imprison Carter 40 he |
did? Held: Undoubtedly he had, (Sclrcls |
W. Neeves, AZ Ind, $50; not only so, bat it |
was his duty TO arrest aud coDfine Carter |
tionsl as not to be offensive to peaceable |
citizens. Reversed and remauded.
Mulkey 4 Russell VS.. the State; from Col
lin county. Opinion by Wilson, Con.
viction for violating the local option law.
Since the conviction, ct an election had In |
accordance with Law, the voters OF the |
precinct have determined against prohibit
Ing therein, and accordingly the commits
sioners court OF fuid county have declared
Ia due form, that the provisions OK the local
option law are no longer in force. Such |
being the case, there is no longer any law |
In force by authority of which this judg- |
msnt can be enforced. Reversed ana dis
missed.
Lawyer Cowel, allies Captain Charles