The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-07-03
THE COURTS.
COURT OLE APPEALS.

COURT OF APPEALS.
Affirmed: Bowen VS.. State, from
Travis county; eX parte Robert Mile
vs.. State, from Bastrop comfy; e.
parte Walter Miles VS.. State, iron
Bastrop county; Daniel Mcdaniel VS.
State, from Brazoria county.
In the case of Jesse Duncan ant
Judd Duncan VS.. State, from Hoot
county, the case is dismissed as Il
Jesse Duncan, and judgment is affirm
ed rs to Judd Duncan.
The appeal is dismissed in the cas-,
of John Heffen VS.. State, from vii
burger county, and judgment reversed
and prosecution dismissed in another
case against the same party.
Reversed and remanded: j. ID
Gartner VS.. State, from Bell county
Thomas NJ. Childers VS.. State, from
Travis county. n, Il. Cobbs VS.. State
from Anderson county; T. p. Wood
VS.. State, from Burnet county; San
Rockbold VS.. State, from Wise county
Lee Reed VS.. State, from Milan coun
ty.
In the case of George Taylor VS..
State. from Wilbarger county, mo-
ton to dismiss is over-ruIed and the
| Judgment is reversed and the cause
remadded.
In the Bowen case the accused was
convicted of theft of horses.
In the Miles cases the applications
| for habear corpus are refused.
In the Childers case the accused
was convicted of fraudulently OBJ
tanning from the state a reward
which had been offered by Governor
Hubbard, for party charged with
murder. In this case MeSsrS. George
Walton end Robert G. West were the
attorneys for the defendant.
Application for habeas corpus in
case of Robertson VS.. State, from
Hays county, was argued. Also in
case of Jim Fletcher VS.. State, from
johnson county. Both cases were
submitted.
SUPREME COURT.
In this court the case of Hanrick VS..
Todd, from Williamson county, was
affirmed in decision read by Hon.
John Young Gooch sitting as special
judge. This judgment in the district
court was by Special Judge Doom, of
Austin. 1t is one of several cases In
volving the title to about one hundred
homesteads in Williamson county.
The effect of the decision is to confirm
the homesteads. The case is similar
to that decided some time ago by
Special Judge Bassett.
In the case of A. Ii. Rippetoe VS..
Heirs of Nestor Clay, from Washing
ton county, the opinion Of the COM
missioners of appeals is adopted by
another special court, reversing the
judgment and remanding the cause.
In the Hanrick VS.. Dodd case, the
appellee, Dodd, answered by plea of
mot guilty." and set up other defense
not necessary to state. To the instru-
ment evidencing the original grant
the appellee interposed an affidavit of
forgery. The case was tried by a
jury, February 1884, and resulted in a
verdict and Judgment for appellee.
The court submitted no other issue to
the jury than that of the alleged forg-
cry of the instrument attacked by the
affidavit, and by their verdict they
found it to be forgery.
The Ripitoe VS.. Clay heirs case, is
practically settled, says the court, by
the case of Tacitus Clay VS.. heirs of
Clay, decided at the Tyler term, 1882.
1t should have been disposed of at the
same time, but was overlooked.
III. Tennlson ct al VS.. E. Tennison ct
al, from Dallas county. Affirmed.
Opinion by Associate Justice West.
City of Galveston VS.. G. Posmains-
ky. Affirmed. Opinion by Associate
Justice Stayton.
II. H McLane VS.. Mary G. Paschal,
from Bexar county. Reversed and
remanded. Opinion by Chief Justice
Willie.
E. W. Moore VS.. Elmira Jones ct al,
from Falls county, Reversed and re-
manded. Opinion by Judge Watts, of
the commissioners of appeals adopt
ed.
Nicholas Hanrick VS.. E. G. Hanrick,
from Williamson county. Motion for
new trial overruled.
The Posmainsky case is suit in be-
half of little girl against the city of
Galveston for damages for personal
injuries resulting from the claimant
falling into a drain on Seventeenth
street, which it is alleged was not
properly covered so as to prevent dam
ger. The defense was that the drain
was reasonably proper one in its
VI COl1OOl anu onO AOof-
ing it unfinished between the street
crossings and alleys was not reasona-
ably liable to result in Injury to per-
sons passing and using ordinary care,
naturally to be expected. The gist of
the action is the negligence of a NUM-
cipal corporation in failing to keep its
streets in repair, whereby damage re-
suited to a private person. The YER
dict and Judgment were for $4,000
damages. Chief Justice Willie hay
ing been of counsel did not sit in the
case. The opinion was thirty pages
of TOOLS cap manuscript, and is very
important decision.
The court will be again in session
to-day for the last day of the term,
when number of otter decisions will
be read. Court meets at 10 o'clock
this morning.
DISTRICT COURT.
Judge Walker refused BALL for the
present, in the case of Mitchell and
Willis, applying for habeas corpus,
and remanded the accused to await
argument of counsel in behalf OF the
applicants Saturday. 1t is not likely
bail will be granted.
Judge Walker, of the district court
Yesterday refused the application of
habeas corpus in the case of Robert
Rabirth, colored, charged with the
murder of William Watford, white,
and demanded the accused without
bail. Mr.. Pendexter, counsel for the
accused gave notice of appeal. The
case will come up before the appellate
court this morning.
49, TcJoTn
engaged in the work Of dividing the
county into school districts. 1t Will
take some time to finish the work.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Walter Morgan VS.. State, from
Travis county. This is the case 10
which young Morgan was convicted
of murder in the second degree in the
matter of the killing Mr.. Henderson
who was employed in Clouds livery
stable in this city. An opinion was
rendered by Judge Hurt, and a dis
senting opinion by Judge Wilson
both for different reasons agreeing
that the judgment should be reversed
and the case remanded. To the opin
ion of Judge Wilson, Presiding Judge
J White adds as follows:
81 have read with much considera
ton and great interest the very abb
opinions of my brethren, as to thu
proper construction to be given thu
language of articles SAT and 54S, of tn
penal code. My conclusions ar
that the views expressed in the opin
ion of Judge Wilson are correct. :.
am therefore constrained to concur Il
his opinion, however much ma,
doubt the wisdom or policy of statut
which in my humble judgment prop
a.l.r ad,,oita only of such CONSTRUCTION