Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-08

pellnnts attorney came To serve IN
writ Of possession the attorney nssuro
him TINT the Judgment was conelusiv
of his wifc's claim; therefore, In Ordo
10 save his crops he entered into tbs
contract. The appellants excepted
generally aud especially aud the OK
captions were overruled, whcreipoi
tho cnsc proceeded Ia trial, md appel
lants recovered Judgment for Sl2S
amount due on rent dcduGtlng the
rent of land claimed by appcllsa iol
his wife. nnd appellants appeal. Held
that tho court erred In overruling MP
pollant's exceptions, for, whether 81
not the matters act up IN the ploB o
| the appellee were true, II H. the doc
trino of law well settled, that u tenuipi
cannot dispute the title OF his land
lord, and the contract in this case wins
ample 10 create the relation Of land
lord aud mud tenant. Reversed aud
rcmandcd. Wilson, j.
Austin Va. st,tc, from Ellis county.
Tho inculpntory evidence In n prose-
cution for the theft of n COW, was Of
the mereBt speculative character, In ~
far ny II tended to connect the defend
ant with the animal, NO more In fact
than that the head Of the animal was
found near tho preipiacs Of n party
with whom the defendant was soon
selling fresh beef In u noigbborlDg
town. over the objections OF defend.
ant the state was permitted 10 read In
evidence the application Of defendant
FOR conlluuaDee filed NJ PREVIOUS
term, wherein he set ~ Tint he ck'
ppciel 10 prove by the absent wit
nossos that he bought the animal he
WINS charged 10 have stolen from one
II. The objection urged TO the ndmIs'
sion Of tho instrument was that IL wa,
In the nature Of "A confession MAIDS IN
arrest the defendant being at TINT
time nrrngned for trial. Art. 100, code
Of criminal practice providcsi INC
con fessIon shall not b. used if, Mt the
time II was made, tbs defendant was
In jnll or other place of confinement,
nor while In custody Of m officer, ulI-
leas II be made In tho voluntary state
uieni of the nccueed, taken before an
examining court In accordance win
law, or be made voluntarily, after hay.
ing been first cautioned that ~ may bo
used npn,st him. Held. that though
not direct confession by defendant u
his guilt, the application was a pafib,l
confession confession 80 Far ~ II
tended 10 connect him with the COW,
which was u material fact 10 be shown
by the state, aud that, IA partial con
fpasiOnp are no more admissible lhnn
direct confessions, unless iilhde 80 ny
tho siatute, the court erred IN ovorrul.
inv the objection Of tho defendant aud
IN admitting the application for a CON
tinnance Reversed and rohlhnded'
Wilson j. ,
Mangum W, State, from Trinity |
county In substance the record ~
tlIa ci,ge shows that on route church
with n party of friends the appellant
found Il piaiol on the highway whloh /
lao plnoed IN bis pocket. ne went on
10 the church, but not INTO W. ni,of
serylre no went 10 the home 81 t'e
wltpena r., whore, while slttlng w
chair, the pistol fell frou, hls pocss,
AZ this junciure y. went Into ~ ~
ipinibs room, ana on his return, Wv
'pIstol had disappeafeu' IDe eVinenoo
hlrler showed that the pisto, wns ny
property of The witness T. ileib 'net
while under some CIRCUMSTANCES we
ilndlng Of u pistol upon the hienWhy
aud subsequently carrying ~, my w
0op,p violation Of law the isn,s W
tt,is cast did not warrant a,Wns'ut,vn
for uitlnwfully carrying q pisto'' wv
yprspd aud retnanddd. lluil y,
Harris Va blnte,ffoln Brown county
Where the state relies upon the l'ps-
SESSION of recently stolen pfopetly "
one aud the main orlihinhl'Vs W..
whatever explanation NJ hueusVu
gave Of lis possession ~ tue nne "
namiHslbis IN liis briihi, " ufe, ".
Drbn1 fidid case against hiin inhue py
Tho possession, alid lIiPsses pP"" WV