Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-06


a fraudulent intent at the time of find.
ing. Reversed and remanded.
Callers u Henry vs.. Moore, from
Grayson county. II isa we'll settled
principle OF law that when the main
charge embodies the law of the case, IL
Is not error to refuse requested charges
even though they present principles
which, in the abstract, are correct.
Remaining objection goes to the action
OF the court in refusing new trial, the
principal ground relied upon being
that the verdictis not supported by the
evidence that is against 1t. The record
does not sustain the objection. AT.
firmed.
Hodges VS.. State, and Burleson vs..
State, from johnson county. The mo-
ton of the assistant attorney-genera
to dismiss the appeals ia these two
cases is supported by necessary afiida.
Wits of officials having appellants in
charge, to the effect that appellants
have escaped. The motion must pre-
vail, the statute being mandatory, re-
curing dismissal under such showing.
Appeals dismissed.
Acosta VS.. State, from Bexar county.
To prosecution for theft of horse
the appellant entered the plea of for
mer conviction. The plea, however.
was not sustained by the evidence, the
theft in this case not being simultane-
GUS with that for which the appellant
was convicted on the trial for theft of
another horse found in his possession
ut the same time. While 1t was error
to refuse an attachment, IL was not re-
versible error in the absence of show
ing that injury was done theappellart
The judgment is affirmed.
Texas d Pacific Railway vs. Provence,
from Dallas county. The petition as
serting sufficient cause of action,
when tested by the rules of pleading,
it was not error to override general
demurrer. The remaining assignment
of error was directed to a que ,tion of
fact. The record discloses sufficient
to sustain the finding of the Jury.
Such being the fact, the Judgment of
the court was correctly predicated
upon the verdict and will not be dis.
turhed. Affirmed.
Wells VS.. state, from Bexar coun-
for the theft of Wurz's horse, the pen
years in the state penitentiary. The
nor does 1t bring upa single bill Of ex-
the court can consider only the sufli-
| cheney of the Indictment to charge the
ollense, and the abstract correctness CT
the charge of the court. Unless errors
of such character are apparent, convic-
| tions, under such circumstances, must
| be affirmed. Affirmed.
Brown VS.. State, from Bexar county.
The offence charged in the indict-
ment in this case was the theft of a
watch, chain aud money, from the
person Oh one oiawilh. me charSe OF
ehe court Responded correctly 70 tne
iacts III PROOF. III, uhaer any phase OF
Inc case, errors assigned were 90,
lectlonaole, they cannot De coiisluereo
from the fact that no bill OF excep-
LIONS Is presehteu; jesteu py eyery
rule OF criminal pleading, the lndlct-
ment was sufficient to charge the
offence OF theft from the person. no
other question remains to be consld-
cred. Affirmed.
Hernandez VS.. State, from Bexar
county. The conviction in this case
| was for the theft of horse, the prop
| erty of one Angola. Several errors
assigned cannot be considered for the
reason that the papers purporting to
be bills of exceptions were not exc
cuted In conformity with the statute.
Such bills must be perfected strictly
according to the law, or will meet with
no favor in this court. Objection to
the Jury is not sustained by the record
The iury pass upon all conflicts oil
evidence. and this court never inter
feres with verdicts on questions Of
evidence, except where they appear
against the evidence. The Judgment
| is affirmed.
swear VIC Stata from Rlanco county
pe1nsai of an annlico,;on for contini,
. e, ILL " nnt ip ponnsidarad In ahsenc,
aeo1 Mii - nv ou tG Entrv of nrs
VI oili "a e eindia,,mant naad not nam,
seri.iien S VI ,n nrnno.ed Juror
S.niin1 that he had formed an un
ohangsahie conc,nsion In fine case. h,
u.na Hranar,n axcnsad The enforce
WIS pit1pney ,,,n as 20 seonestration q
iilvnt VI ny ~ iu ,;,hin ia discretion a
WITNESSES - T w tha ahsence Of n show
WY ooui', any ~ aa,;on will not he re
ing Oh a9use ns aoe,O tha onnrt mo,
!. ,na o,onsa e chnrgsd lmurderl and q
r raonasted nv the evidence. is unobjec
t;odnah,a likewise the evidence sun
.io nt, 10 var5ict Affirmed. Will
! pop's Jus 'e'u'
sou uouo,, ys State from Bexar county
, VIVA om. ,he State relies upon circunl
,, III 'n aviIenca alone To ESTABLISH
i stdutiai c''uShoS .al n,,iJono