Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-25
4 HIGH COURTS.
Rendered at the
Il,e,tcn Term, 1854.

ilt,iuh ltins
Tsf OF APPEALS.
|rti,ny fol- the Gazette.
rys the State, from Travi
I'M conviction in this cas-
|aI,mv on one Gibson, ONT
IIssa Joint defendant under ;
D3Ianent for the same of
\ ground relied upon for re
SsmIe directly to the sutli
theiniictment to charge the
rpSa inspection the indict
fund 10 charge the ele'
he oflense as laid down by
dco1e. Unlike the old code,
b must be held TO define the
SdOmy. The indictments
llaent, The evidence ample,
lHge Of the court uneXcep'
The Judgments must be af-
" the Slate, from Jones
l1l Is an appeal from an or
tcgri below refusing the APP
u. The doctrine has been
10 only be refused when, by
idsDl,n the defendant is
mems that bail is not a
light; that ii the evidence is
strong such as would lead IA
alspsssicnate mind to the
THAT tie defendant is guilty
Fashionable doubt of the cap
charged against him, that
bad bten committed and
eapltal grade, and that the
vas the guilty agent, the
Be refused. Otherwise.
Rihe evidence is not suni-
proof EVIDENT TO show the
have beel Of the capital
slce the Judgment is re-
bsll fixed in the amount of
5hite, ?. J.
q, the State, from Freestone
Pie conviction in this case
a1li with intent to murder.
!ien, on appeal, il urged to
ieiey Of the evidence, and
Pc Of the court. The test
fs swhelher or not If death
% would the ofiense have
As disclosed by the
Eolld have supported Il CON
murder, If 50 determined
passing upon the credibilitv
Ees'ss ana The weight of the
q (which they are exclusive |
| ~ charge of the court IRE !
+ law ii harmony with this |
eifect, Affirmed.
4 y. the State, from Bas.-
! Yin passing upon the ac-
\ eoatt below in refusing a
Z anil subsequently, in re "
y s,, sLla =. this court will. in |
4 T al the evidence addneed |
n consider ,Da., The materiaIitv !
~ " 'ialh ofthe desired testi.
W !, proposed III this case, In
nv vv'o ,eI' does not appear
y. s0a l,ae' and hence the ac.
! ] s @af' with respect to the
7 r aaa new tIlal will not be
H. Isle , court should not have
"' jury that, llnder a. 4,
i i, W., y the Indictment be-.
', % show the receiving in ' Of
' 4, 3, me Jury could con SSiet
b,el V y I such charge not
s' Iaas %, : not revisa5le er.
i. Il D White docs not concur III
l Il opposition p in its entire
llsIs ~ the disposition Of
: !, sns State, from Gopzo,o.
,srI1s'se Z, q the court t thou. h
I n, s..l The error be fun6fd u
I'd II. ,ssss as.al by this court court
ID, o. ,,As Up to, a correct
s ID 4 o Tue error has bean asg,
new IS, courts attention ina in u
n tor eI,beMo a sIl,. in arga-
i i,oo.asin and confined i'oui 10
Tsrssl "a, "a conviction viii III
'eoaase'II 'gisly because The
! euIlt y mas emphaticallv
be iseI. q the defendant,
Ils ssssIl they may be- and ultl
sAs pars,s bis guilt. The The
J, saple L i Ihlaseaa u
i iiI,s : Conviction ''ff or s,.Is
/ / s : Railway V, 1.,,o.
/ |. s ,,'l. -fhis' Wy lyons,
y ags ELIMINATION of G'i rlg 1a
5n, sAiu OF dainais ~
I III measure Of damages
! W.. " q q !, the land ,ii' oges
! = srd L TIE q time It y wss
as sSle award Of p l,'eh
s.'i' lat ofthes ax,sri must
'sgueat ya,aol otherwise evi.
~. T the laaal' u Increased
! at 4 '@'a, Is adnis.
i, Tagging iba from Smith
, ~ Judge q t ,apy It j. the
asls i sss, ,'s adyaololhdis
~ sa ! pertinent s ad,c ca
\ -. q u
n H. BE n made n..l by the
H. " a raIs Of Of n wsltin9. III
n y ssIs IL g; c; ., F. a a,s-
'',','is|si e e ss should ", be eon.
sAa Il tSss aalile,gatIons