The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-06-05
THE COURTS.
syllabus ~ Decisions by The Courts Of
Last Hesori.
legal BaIr.spllitlns NieIy ard Aecu
raleiJ Performed.
The Lawyers aud laymsn'. Calendar
COURT or AFrEALs.

line OF $50 Vas susssd. The vital auss.
Ilons Tai SD In the case have already bean
paIssd upon py the court In the Cess OF
KAN Va ,he SLATE, the opinion IN which bias
%. en- published ia iull In this paper, ~ d
up ~ saihry o, thst opinion the eAss 10
sinFIasd,
Psnell ct 81. Va. he STATE; from johnson
county, This 10 sn sppssi nom lnasmsn'
Dy default taken upon . foIisltsi bail bond,
The .clre iseiss related ell tlo facts, and
all tbs rsquisiIss asmspded by
.riiele il3 u, q T.. buon being tie case,
Judgment by default IN such 4 solfe iaoiss
admits all tue facts therein contained, aud
~ there IA no error In the judgnenI, II 10
affirmed.
city az Dallas W. Rose; from Dallas eoun'
". ih,s motion 10 dlsiniss tns appeal IA
this case il b.soG on the s.lo eTound tnst
Ihe record does not contain any appeal bond
or show Auy ProuLd upon which this court
can n.srms jUI..dic,iOa OF the appeal; but,
hold; The UI,y ID Itl eyed iIOm giving ANY
spHesl bond. vtc,, by the act OF August,
1915, amending the city charter, ami thsfs-
Tor. this uoGr, ssaumes IuHsdIeuon. Motion
10 dltmiss oNeIsulea,
Mahon Va, the State; from Smith county,
Appellant vas convlcisd OF maasisueaiot
nor the killing OF one +, Chi.dsIs. Tbs OBJ
isetioLs taken 20 tho charge VI the court aie
untsnable, besides no exceptions were
taken 20 the same NJ ire
time, nor additional charges correcting the
tuppossd eTIors sseei. Tns record con
tsins no error Of which appellant eau c NJ
plsiu, and the evidence being amply sufi'
Glen, to support the Judgment, tho same
M.tinson VS.. the State; from Travis
county. On rehearirg: The alleged error
relied on In the motion tor rehesrihg IL
that 10 our former opinion this court
erred 10 holding that Il was not error IN
the court refusing 10 give 10 charge the law
GOV, rning ciicunsiAuiial evidence, but
held: That evidence not being entirely
circunsts ntisl, out direct and positive rs
10 ths commission OF the offence rs charged
by defendant. there was no error. Al
firmed.
Turner va. the State; from Parker county.
This is a motion for cerIiorari and tor M
ordor commanding the district court TO
substitute certain papers III the
case destroyed by tiie after the
appeal in the case was perfected.
As TO tho motion for ce:tio.ari, the same II
granted, but Tor decision on tho ether quss
ton ralsed, ste opinion in same case upon
granted.
Howard vs.. Moore; from Grayson coun'
Nv. On rshsnripg. The appellant presents
no new questions for cur consideration In
his motion foe reheaiiDg, and upon anoin'r
n yss;igation OF the record We still sdhere
10 the iorm, opinion, that the bill oil tN-
ceptiony connot be consiteIec, having bren
embodied In the statement VI fscts hisd
after term ,ia.e, and also that tbs evidence
10 amply tfi,ien. 10 support the verdict
ard Judgment. Affirmed.
Tounley ct al. VS.. the State; from Robert
eon county, two cases. In THESE rSsss Inc
assist ut attorney. genersl moves 10
dismiss ths spptai because the record
iails to show thai any notice
OF appeal was given III the
court below without which this court ma
no jurisdiction, but appellants coupse
coming on without motion from csrtiorAr
Aft :mins thst eucn noics was duly given
the latter ia granted. MoEip Tor certiorar
Tsxss Express company. Va. Dnprse ct al;
from Jonuson county. The motion to disIuiss
this appeal il based upon tbs want OF sui.
ficisnt appeal bond. the bond 10 "condi-
toned, that the appellant, the Texas Elk,
press company shall prosecute MS appeal
with effect and in case the judgment OF the
court Of sppehls shsll be against them,
that they sha perform its judgment, seu'
tencs. or decree, and pay all sucn damages
as said court may award against 'thsm.' y
Held sufficient. Motion to dismiss over.
ruled.
Esca eao vs. thu state; from b. xar count I
On rehe ring. The main ground Of 'be mo
ton TOR rehearing IL that appellant
was not present In court when
his motion for new trial, but a.
the record does lot show that he was not
present, his presence wi be presumed. Ac-
CON panying tho motion tor rehaaripg - u
affidavit Of appellants attorney who vsived
hls presence IN the court DbioW TO tho ffrCt
that such waiver was without authority
but even If we could consider such sitdaVii,
the samo shows that the motion Tor nc"
trial was overruled GU the merits which the
record sustains ss proper. Affirmed. This
is death penalty.
Rober tsoD ct al. We. the State; from Rob
ertson county. This ia an appeal from a
Judgment on q forfeited bail bond, and the
sole uestion raised in as to the alleged or.
ror OF the court in admitting In evidence
the indictment against the principsl III the
bond because the same WAS insufficient, bui
held: In proceeding on forfeited oail
bond the Bufici, ncy or ipsuLlciency OF TIE
indictme mt cannot be called IN question by
the sursties. Affirmed.
Hester VS.. the State; from Brown coHnty
A ppeIlaAt vas convicted OF an aggravated
assault and battery, for which he was lined
S25. The purported statement OF iact'
contained In the record, while signed sno
agreed to by both the attorneys tor the
sin,e and appellant, yet not being sigred OF
apprOyed Dy tho Judge, cannot bS coz
sldersJ. 10 the absence OF ststsiuent o
iacts, there being no error III the lAdic5
mani or charge OF the court, the iudgmsn'
H.m Va. the State: from Dallas county.
| No. 29!S. This Is another OF the serlta e
cases before this court, which are conelceraI
n. decided by the opiplon OF this court de-
| liyersd 1T "a former dsy OF this term End re-
| l,,lI s,., ~ Al
thority of that case, Thu ca3e musl be ant
Conper, alias Jsokfon, from FAILS
c3unty. Opinion by White, p.j. Wten
the case is cne whol y OF crcumstanNa
evidence, O fHilufe Of the court TO lnsiruc
tie i1ry rs 20 that character OF evidence
ia iuud nmental Ir.or. Where defendant
application Tor continuance was u
procure tho testimony Of TIVE
that on tina day Of the alleged sale OF :,,h
stolen ANIMAL to G., he went to b. and LET
on lhe train towards g.; and no question o
diligence WAS raised, and defendant wa
identified alone by G who hsc nevs
known him before, ana who tes!ihec, Vi
deIsndsut was az B. and took the train 10
O., then, 90 account of the distance, ant
because OF the time OF the day saw hun II
The morning, it would be impossible TO
him 10 have been ut the place saw him
and at the. i'm. - Held. A new trisl shou
have been granted defendant. Reversed
aud remanded.
Davidson vs.. the State. from Fslls county
Opinion by white, p.j. Conviction +,
obstructing public road; For the mod
and manner by which public roads are ee
tabli1bed, see Revised Statutes, article
) 1850 to 1880 inclusive. Oas OF the ,prs
requisites IL, that the Jurors appointed t
lay out the road, shall, before proceedin
to act az such, take the prescribed oath
Rev. stats. art. 4,36S.) In order to oood dem
private property 10 public uses. the Ia,
,. must be- strictly observed and pursued
| ard doing what the IL " rea utres is con