The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-06-19
TIL: COURTS.


Affirmed on certificate without reference
TO tae meritg OF tha case: Dallas City rail.
say company We. Hill; from Dallas county;
aud Houston & Texas Cea,ral railway com.
pany va. Jackson; from Limestone county.
Williams Vi. the State; from Franslln
county. Appellant was convicted o! The
theft Of hOTse belonging 10 one Bouts, nld
his punlshmeut affixed q. fifteen years i'm
prisonment IN the panilentiary. la the
record brought helo.a this court Oh appeal,
there is no statement at facts, nor bills OF
exceptions, and IN the absence OF these H.
strumsn,s, there appearing no error in the
charge OF the court, aud the inalctmeG'
beinP good and sufficient, the juiSmels u
Gszswsy We. tho Sac; nom B.s,rop
county. Appellant briggs up this appeal
ftom q judgment of conviction for the theft
of a horse, tor which he was assessed q pun.
ishment OF five years imprisonment. An
inspection OF the record shows the .videnca
ample TO support the judgment. che
charge Of the court is sufficient
aud the indictment beimg apparent Of
record the judgment Is atlirmea.
Bollu vs.. the State; from Orange c0unGt.
Appellant was convicted ui an assault with
intent to murder one Mounts, ipr which
his punishment Wa osss ssed at two yesr9
in the penlteniiary. The charge of ,hs
court sufficiently defines malice aud a gra.
tsken to IN, charge, or contrary instruo
tions psked, ard beyond this no error
prejuiicigl t. dsieDdnnt appears. Hhe evil.
dence is amply sufficient. Affirm 4.
Fnler vs., The State; from Bell county.
Conviction for the theft If d. @, sunni la's
cali. Punishment assessed, two years I'm.
pfisouuisnt. The evidence is amply sutli
cient to support the Judgment. Tue cnatge
OF the court is full, fair ana impartial ana Il
N nhtgNftNn L,
is good and sufficient and no error osing
apparent OF record, the judgement II nj
tirmed.
Darrell We. The State; from Guadalupe.
county. Conviction Tor tneiJ al cat
tie. Punishment assessed at TWO
years imprisonment. The tess;
imony Of the scGiompIic oe,,ra Neal
and the evidence is sufficient to support
the Judgment OF conviction. The charge Of
the court IL full and correct, an tie in
dictmept being sufficient and no error ap.
pesring Of record, the judgment l. siiirm d.
Breeding va. the State; from Milan
county. Ia this case, at former day of
this term, the judgment was affirmed, be
court holding that 1t was within their
province to presume juri' diction Of the
case, that is, thAt the. :erm OF the county
court a. which ,hs clnv,csiou vas hln, had
been provided for hy rus GJunt2 c.
miseioners court, as required by law. fhig
motion for Tehcning 3 based upon the al
legged want oi power in the court 10 80 pre-
sumo jurisdiction, but the conrt st II Ids
that /. has such authority. The juds meat Is
affirmed.
james Lyuu W. toe State; from Milan
cauntY, (No. BID, aud l.. iGynesv1 the
s at, 'rHm Nil an couptv, (No. 3l72), in
vclv.,i lhe same questions presented IN the
cisa OF B-esiing VI. the Stste, supra, and
upnp tbs authority OF that case, tae judg-
neny iu hese cases a;s affirmed.
Dorsey alias NEG acc vs. tho State; from
Brown county. Conviction ior the theit OF
n horse. Punishment assessed, six years
imursanmeut. This case in IA companion
oass t. shat Of Btevirs w. the STATE, 81.
irmsd Az q previous day OF this term, ana
upna the authori y OF that casa, tins evil
dence in this case Deirg amply sufficient 10
support nc Judgment, and the charge Of
the cunr. and Indictment being 2ood end
Sufficient, this judgment is affirmed.
Elliott vs.. Alexander: from Boil county.
This cause Wns dlsmissed nj former dsY ut
this term because the Us ignmens o. errors
was net fled ut the same time tie bond
was filed and because the appeal b9nu vas
insufficient, in that it did not cantein the
names of all the parties to the judy
ment. This motion 10 reinstaie
is based on the alleged error Of the court IN
0lsmjS5iIg Lng CGsc. NIILiisetiJ
under the rules OF courts aud the statutes
governing in such matters the judgment
was correct Motion overruled.
Everheart vs.. Isbell; from !Grayson
county. This case is one of facts, in which
the evidence sustains the var-
dict The charge OF the court
is unobjsc,ioDebe. AS to the
action o. the court in permitting witnesses
to testify who had violated the rule, sueh
matters are within the discretion OF the
couit, end clear abusa must be show, 20
the preiua:ca OF appe!lant's rights Ia order
to reverse. In this case the evidence sd
ducej from there witnesses Ws5 not euGh
az could haye off cted the final result o. he
case or The vsruic, Of the iary. Attirmeu,
Santos vs. tbs State: from FRO county
Motion 10 mede to dismiss this appeal be.
cause of the escape of defendant .pending
made BY the authorized officer ard filed
herein, the motion is granted and the ap-
peal dismissed.