Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-06-06

Courts of Texas.
COURT OF APPEALS. r
8. w. Ogle VS.. the state, appeal from nm | =
county on motion for new trial the de. !!
fonda t alleged that after his cause was sub. !
mitted to the jury snd pending Its consider =
alton, one juror separated from the Others ,
hours. II appears from the aflidayits filed ,
in opposition to the motion, that the juror !
rest during the night, but was ali the time In |,
charge oil an officer and WAS not spoken TO
about the case, nor did he speak TO any one
about the case. Held, the mere separation OF
u jury Is not cause for a new trial. In addi.
tiun IT must be further made TO appear that
by reason of such separation probable injus-
tice to the accused has been accustomed.
Affirmed. Opinion bv il'soD, j.
,ora McMahon VS.. the state, appeal from
the ques ions asked anu the answers given
by witness as To what occurred between
commencement of the difficulty" and 1t is
| here insisted that IL was .rror TO admit the
| evidence, because the immediate difficulty
between Houston and DeGrafienried, and
| the conduct ofappellant bad no present con-
nection with nor reached the subsequent
Wright. Appellant was charged with an
assault with intent to murder Wright, and II |
| rs claimed that all she did and said Of an In |
| culpatory character was eaid and done before |
| wright became n participant in the difficulty |
and that the sIate should be limited to proof
| of intent towards Wright alone. 4 his posi- |
| lion is fully snswered by the fact that the |
| difficulty between Houston and DIR. Cir fen |
rled and the shooting between Houston and
| Wright. resulting in the killing of the former
and wounding of the latter, were parts OF enc
entire transaction Were circumstances and
| res gestG linked together and necessary 10
elucidate and explain l he transaction. Being
connected parts of one entire transaction the
evidence was admissible. Affirmed. opin-
joseph W. Barber VS.. the State, appeal
from Limestone county. The appellant;
out writ OF habeas corpus and hearing
was had at u regular term of The distric court,
resulting In an order refusing bail, and an
was made allowing ten days after the adj
jou,nment OF the court to prepare and fle the
ruth of pril lssi 1he statement OF facts
, was not filed until the I'D day of April, 1884.
Held, thai under the rule stated In ex parte
effect ct f that the s AsRS a of 70 ass
Ia nubeas corpus cases mus be made up and
; or minal cases''-the statement of facts In
this case not having been filed in ten days
3 after adjournment, cannot be considered by
3 firmed. Opinion by Hurt, j.. , -,
]. C. johnson VS.. the state. appeal from
J, Hopkins county. An order was made by the
a cnurt ol It's own motion, allowing ten days TO
file statement Of facts; The court anl turned
sun IF March, 1854. a statenent e., was pre- n
e prevail within the ten days, but WAS disap.
Ia proved; aud no statement was prepared
on the part of the appellant In regard TO this
matter, the Judgment must be reversed
!, | Opinion by Hurt, j.
> Coleman county. The indictment alleges
e. that defendaot did unlawfully play at a
room OF sa Back IN Of fhe G Edge saloon
10 The rule is that If the indictment ALLEGES thai
the playing took place ,s IN c or al vii, eaI
but II the playing occurred In or a,
he any other public house or or. p ,.c,
~ constituting IT public house or pla"e mus
Ii he alleged. Under this rule the indictmen
is defective in substance, and the Jucgmen
re is reversed ana the pros. cution dismissed
,a Opinion by HUT, j.
'e Scheuber ~ Hochs adter vs.. Hslcomb ct NJ
L. appeal from Denton county. The trial JudS'
being requested by appellants 10 state
lie writing his conclusions OF fact aud law. an
ra he refused the appellants were denied
re right expressly given by the statute. An
the fact that but one dav OF the term r.
| mained, and otner cases We're SET LOT hea,
a | ing, consuming the time of the court, WI
So not excuse this denial. This trial shout
have been completed before any other cas-
I'd | was called. Reversed and remanCeu opit
=, | ion by Hurt, j. ~,
Ill Martin-Brown Company w, A. j. MilhurI
its appeal from Maatsgue county hppttii,nil
de ment described itself prSpe,ry IN 1ls prom rom
sh pany." The clerk in Issuing the writ OF a
cd tachment made mistake and state an
az styled appellant In SAID VIII IA tn M nrnn,
nIea m AZ the writ abate on account Of mi
ny homer. Appellant filed motion 70 perm per-,
.lv the clerk to correct and amend IN VIM
rid rect the writ Yves refused and the plea M
tanned and the writ qua,hed. Held, tn wr
10 may always be AMENDED, ifnot 10 tne ipJu
me- OF the rights of subsequent attaching Gre
"e itors or of the bail, and the court erIeu
i refusing the motion 10 amend HeVerS
Dig John N. Haney vs., j Fl. Milliken, appe
tie. from Parker county: Upon lot ewnea In
lev a frame house the house was levied up
H. as the property of Miliiken under eSee cai
NY issued on "a jadsm men wb,c asa' W
in h foraidden anu by both MiIliken and Sang
ink Haney. the appellant, became the pnrsna,,
sir. house when Milllken seized and took p
tha session Off Haney brought THIS suit ~
sequestersd the house the case "a, Wa va !. M
the without jury and the court founu Us a ~
ter OF fact that the sale of the house was ma
mer by the sheriff one day after the return aag
mt said sale ' sale was as void and conferred
title upon Haney. The case a Is pf ~
here as "a, an , agreed o,s case was sna aperso
Property" Held. there is a material dist Isl
lion made as to the effect OF SAFE n W
'h' and Of personal property. In the case OF + 7
properly The sals is void and confer. no ~ !.
the Ths the house in
sup troversy was personal property the ,, 20
tical erred In holding that the ga WAS r ved
lany the judgment would be by court h hay
no jurisdiction OF the case. whether nrans
Upon rs sse OF
arise owner OF the lot, asd Milliken. made al
time The house was erected, anu VIZ
ssed | was vi are not ioformed by the RECORD:
IVhn agreed by the parties to this suit .na. ., I
~ ho personal property, but II the iact ~ ~
What wis. this az cement could not give !uris
pect- ton. Reversed and remahoeo' oP'A
Garter Bios. & Co. VS.. Wise County
Teal Co.. appeal from Wise county. rms IN a
nishment proceeding commenced ~ ~.
ono davit which Is AZ follows: "Csrkr blo pad
ohe vs., Chus. ID Cafes. Personally nPpea'ew ,
, but per N. Haney who. beln: GUY ~,
enti- deposes and says that he ~ ING NY. "a
No for John A. Carter. James " ar
ne ID. A. Fodipe. j. G. Bethel and ". d. - - -
erin partners trading under the nrm a nau
Now Carter Bros n Co., and are resiaen. . nv
,a1 + | ing In Louisville, stats OF hentucnn' 4
.eu plaintiffs In the suit of themse yes ~ o 4
on OF ment In the county court oil WISE 90 ~"
hut Texas, against defendant, Chas. u. In'sss s,
!, ex that In said case plaintiffs have yn9Ss "a
., against the defendant Tor inc sun, ,,h, ~
tn OF besides costs OF suit, all OF Wiz W
cd in shown by the record In said cau !Ss tSat
= co, rendered ON the 10Th of March, ls,St .nsE
sat- Judgment Is still pending due and unsa",
upon and no part OF The same mas ever been nj
'ould that thedefendant has not %i ssasion wi
t out IVY ~ racution su iilcIent u
her" isfy such Judgment, and aiiiant further y
prac- that the Wise County coal company 10
Z a., corporated or Joint stock coinpnus' II
. ~ its residence aud place OF business W ~,
with tnr Wise county. Tex, aud that j. q Ia az
t and Is president, and J. N. VSem s ~ or
paw Wise County Coal company, anu All iSs,