The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-16
c.unrnp Arrk,la.

the nnpfllaft vas charged " IN anu Chh
vo,ed Of constructing public road" Tee
motion Ia dismiHs the Appes VI based OF
the ground mat the rroosoIE incc states 10
CiTsrca known Ia tho law. Held: fbero II
uu uti.nsa under the lag, uDlo,s tina act u
"Giliully" done; hence tue reco gniz no'
states no oiisuso known 10 the law. Appua
missed
rhe motion IN dismiss the appeal IN tht'
case u based upnn the ground that this
court has no jurisdiction because the re
ord does nOb show that any nouct
~ appel was given Ia she court bti1g
/ HOLD: As tne motion Il HnstaincJ ~ ~ ia0
| H. must n. sustained. G. q. l.. AIT, $40, II
rox4-,lS: SO rexas, Gs3. 3 CT. App., Oh; 3
CT App, 39l.) Aspeni III nj sid.
While We. tho Stat: ifom u LIS county.
The reclgniz,ucs herein slates thtt tn-
4. f.ndtnt wrs charged with, nGd conv 'ed
OF, "nul,gu h carrying away iimoer FROM
| md not his cwu.' The motlon IN based
ON the grouud tnat no otIensa against the
law IL Therein stated, Held: "Uulnwml,V
carrying away tlmber from land not ms
own" 10 not an uiTvuse 10 nomi e. To con.
stt,iir nu III -nsn 10 must have besn drr q
kno vim ~ aud ,ith0ut ire consent OF the
! ugner" Appeal dismissed.
/ n'ckIts1n " tue tate; RON l. III cDunt- .
| Conviction wss had IN this Case tor uultw.
! fully ,el,uV liquor 10 minor. The motion
| to dttniits c,its IN question tho euiicienci
! ~ the rcG'g iZlncs, because 10 istes $50 Of
| fslse sgi At the Law fnereclgnzlnos r..
c ties the uif.nse as selling 10 a MINOR"
Held To De no offence. Appes, dis.
missed (cho opinion IN the above cas- ap-
| plies to five others between tho saas par
tea
Osin VS.. the Stat from D,lls county.
Conyintion tor unlswiuiiy carrying brass
knucllss. The rec0ri contains no ro.cGsni-
,nca, nor does II reci - any where that the
defendant IL uiined In jail, and the no-
,ior 81 dismiss mast therefore prevail. APP
peal dismissed.
Mira. Parker W. tho state; from D.llss
county, Conviction far Keeping dso =
derly house. The motion 10 dismiJa sets
out tina there 10 no rsc1gDizinre in the
record and " ~ not shown mat defendant
l. in jail. Held: When party appssls IN
mis- it IN tgnnr cases aud the record c pttins
no r. cognztuoe, the rec ord must show that
defeudsut is N jhil. (SCt. app, 81, GIL
Appeal dismissed.
Beat vs. tho State; from Fannin county,
Conviction for distui b,ng r,l'giOus w0rsh y
| The recoguiz luce IeCites that defendant pas
convicted of "disturbing religious worship.
Held Disturbing religious worship Is no,
an oilarse unless the ssne 10 "wilu.lY
done q Court Of Appeal %, 8 COURT OF APP
peal. 6Y2) and the recognizauce states no
! onenso known 10 tho law. Appeal dls-
missed. ~
Watson We. Cox; from Ellis county.
Among other grounds set form in the mo-
| lion To dissniss rs hat because the appeal
| band Is not conditioned m doHble the
amount of the Judgment aud costs. Tho
record bears OUT tho motion and 10 rs Rus
tsined, but the appellant NAV give new
appeal bond in the GUN OF 1900. Appeal
dismissed
Gordon vs.. tho Ststo from Fsnnln ooun.
ty. Opinion by Hurt j. Conviction for
SANDER. Appellant urges taat the iniOr-
mgtlou shonld hhvo contained an ellegi.
tlon explaining the use OF the word nsed
TO convey tho idea Of want of chastity.
Held: 40 in Edgar We. McCutcheon 60 NJ Isl
1851 that the word Is we'll understood anti
the objection is unter able. The slaudereG
party nsving married since tho SANDER It
MAS proper for the information 10 charge
the slsndsr upon hcr by her name 90 mar
rsd, and, SIS The proof identified the par.
tries as one and the SAME, the objections
thereto nro not msiut Unable. Affirmed.
FAlkuer ". tho slate: from GruysOn
county. Opinion by Wilson ]. Conviction
upon aggravated ngssult gud battery upon
evidence directly conflicting. In such STATE
OF case IL becomes question as 20 the cred
jbility Of tho witnesses, in which the Jury
are tho exclusive judges, and their decision
will not be disturbed. The charge Of the
court is good and sufficient. Affirmed.
hardeman We. tho State; from Ellis
couniy. Opinion by Wilson, The in
diotmeut in this case charged that delsndant
. executed 10 J. Il. w. n valid mort.
gage Ia writing upon eighteen acres Of
ogi ton, then and taere being movshle
said cotton 10 divers persons with intent To
deiraud lai1 W., etc. Held: The offence
charged could only ba committed upon per-
sonsl or movable property. 2. The words,
"eiahteen acres OF cotton" mean n growing
c-on ~ cotton on eighteen acr's OF Iaud.
.. Such crop Of cotton, while personal,
Is not movable property, ard the irdictment
therefore charges no oifense knoWn 10 mo
Law. Reversed and dismissed
Culieus and Henry W. Bri ton 70 Long
from Grsyson county. Opiuion by Wilton
/. As tha supreme court hassuthority I'M
der The tatue 10 pass rules governing tuo
p-sct CO, this court VIII follow the rulesl aid
dogn b. that court In the late caseH q Tex
as Law Review 81, -0,) IN effect, that no ex.
osutio, made to evidence in the trial conrt
VII be considered III tins apuellat. couri,
unless the same appears in bill OF cXcep-
unus as IN n statement al facts, duly tigned
aud Ned before the adjournment OF the
court tor the term. Exceptions contained
ma statement was not signed ard hled
during the term at which the trial was mad
cannot be considered even II tlet within
The tins allowed by the court. But III
oriminnI cases This court will follow the rule
aid down In kge,o vs. the State. 90 CT.
App. CO Molion 20 strike gu, granted.
SUPREME COURT.
Doan & Co. Va. Smith, Lyon d Co.; rem
Clsy county. Motion to dismiss IL filed,
based upon these grounds: l. Because me
clerks certificate shows tnat the transcript
does not contain full and correct copy OF
all the proceedings had IN the cause. 2.
Because the clerks certificate u the tran
scri 81 Ia not such as IL required by law. 8.
Because the clerks certificate certihes that
that tho transcript contains true aud cor
reot cory Of the proceedings ss provided in
article iili Revised Statutes, and the tran,
script nowhere shows that the parties agreed
10 any sucn statement, etc.,, rs provided BY
said article. Held The motion 10 sustained.
Appeal dismissed.
Ryan vs., Dudley ct al; from Lamar coun-
ty. Opinion by Willie. c. ]. The appel
lees moved to dismiss this appeal, because
ola variance between the Judgment and
that described in the appeal bond. The
judgment as rendered 10 against - Ryan
snf - Crook; as decided In the bond It is
sgainst RYAN alone. Upon authority OF
McGarry vs., Burney a Tex. 2s7) the sp-
peal Is dismissed.
Brown vs.. Booth; from Wise county. Mo-
transcript does not show when or by whom
the same was demanded, nor 10 whom de-
liyered, nor IL thu endorsement Of the
clerk on tho transcript made and
81 rnsd bv him, especially. HELD: TIE
motion IL well taken. amended rule Oh,
/, Texas Law Rsview.} Appeal dismissed.
Peterson va. Stanley; rom Wise county.
Notion to dismiss, because: 1. This appssl
pond does not describe or otherwise iden'
tify the certain lsHds and premises In
voIved in the suit. 9 Because In addition
| 10 the decree Of specific performance, he
Judgment was that the clerk deliver t. de
end sni q certain cssh payment OF money.
notes. rendered In court. and in the clerk
----r.l.- - f.fl-nr dnrrnci n lie n fcf NM