The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-20
COURT DECISIONS.
Long LAST oi lales, Dcchions by 'ne
higher Courts,
Ca,cielly Copied ana Prepared 'oF
puhiica lon
Nv tho ncraid's Regular hpir.er


suPRrMx COURT.
,,....f p,iir, "a Jonts from D. lls
,,rnf, Oouion BY West, The evidence
IN ina case 10 10 tbs dedication OF lhe au'e.
Ia ouefliol 100 the use OF tn puunV Wv.
no,aietiur. la such q state o, Case u'nV
hocsuIt committed some serious etp, !.
Il, eharse, ur in giving or rl'uslus ,4su NC
lions, Gs in tie admission % iii ,.ct
svisnuoe. lhe verdict OF the Jury "hl .g'
az Iistrnsttd. The auth mites ON 'ne ,.p
;act az dedication have been exnmintu' . .e
,nNrrc, ol tue court Is IN the main CO. ~
eyposition of the Law on that ~ ,ltel ~
nlicsble 10 tho case Ia hand iu-'- '.
material error. Affirmed. ,..... ,yis.
Trowder Va. Clements a. tl', ~ ia ~ ~
countv Opirion by SaYton, lAe.'
Ssinepo doubt thlt the land .g Y, b'u.i'
dnr,og tbe marriage OF . Ohm ana hhl .It'
n sn. that they pOtstssto w q. w W.
of her death, sic law pfevumes a.
commuuity property oWn'u 'y |t.r
coneI right (Rgvised Stau.- AT ~.
~" l,@ltrf vas sold hy John H. orc
r. doe. I'D lil vile Dt'rrulhls .'NV
tbrousn UI. yoatre by CONSECUTIVE useu
Aoe,r ~ thsmselvce. lhe chu1fel OK NeI
esret c.aim ;ha the land Was nousn '.. ".'
psid Tor with money the tepAIe '3 tIef'
afrneIr mother DB.ondauts claim in.'
N,..tt .,r with TIC sfpsra.e pro eiy q
Iohn n. ne evidence was colulcuDs ~
az the r5urt found that The properly Wa
eommurity u evidently did not deS y, =
sy,denc, d. either party auiiieil -, ~
sented % ~ 70 cAuaot -- s,Saeor 'or
dnding The iacs .aSiStiil; I ne shossd
in their psll-.lIf'io recover judgmr {
tract o: n The land as they sbo ID
denyle.-S entitled to" rev. Stat Ar.
w Affirmed.
county. Opinion by stsytou, !. Bills VI
exceptions must DO signed sud hiCd dutlug
tho Term, ana the iac, that they are incor'
porated IA o statement OF facts filed on
proper 'der IN due time after tho close o.
the term does not change the rule. (See
Texas Law Review, %, CO. Tor collation. OF
authorities on tnis question: Bile Of eX'
ceplion on their ace, o. m connection WITH
the plead ngg al 5tai emeut 81 iActa, ehOuld
Gle rly show mat evidence objected 20 was
not admissible Where neither the 4sslgu-
ments OF error uor the MOTION for now
trial point ou' medically the orr0neous
finding, they will not be c1usit cred. Al
EudIck "a. Eodiok; nom Callahan coul.
ty. Opinion by StaytOn !. In the absence
Of state mont Of fsuit, the correctness &C
charge 1.vcu vii noe h9 considered unless
under no fectl which might have been
proved under The pieAdiOga could toe
charge have been correct. (5i lexap, 400,
Texas Law Review, 0S) where the assign
meuts 20, not 30 much to ne CORE Ctntss OF
the charge, "a 10 supposed waut Of fullrcss
thereof, 10 is the dutv OF the complaining
psfty TO ask further charge. Where the
bills nf exception, taken 70 the exclulou
OF evidence, do BOT stale the objection
urged 20 the evidence, nor the grounds on
which IL vas excluded, especially In
case where there Is /. statement Oh iao.s
in the record, Iulinge OF The court Ia in
Guiding the evidenoe will not be considered.
GA Texss 43S; 8 rexas Law Reyiog %; 70
fCaxag Or A fl Pmed
Keeling Il al. Vs. Vaughan; irouI Hays
county. Opinion ny Stayt %, J. Under the
act OF March -. 1879 q resignation OF the
ASSIGNEE IL q refusal TO execute the trust,
and the county judge has the power to re-
move him Oud appoint another. The ac-
cepiance % the resignation Of the assignee
iB equivalent To sn order vi removal which,
when m ade, calls for lhe appointment OF
another, and all persona interested being
notified, the subsequent appointment OF
the assignee is valid. When the deed OF
assignment conveyed certain designated
property, without Ia terms declaring that
the property thus conveyed Yves all the as
signer possegaed, except that exempt from
forced sale, but tho inventory made part
OF the assignment, aud the required oath
contained clear and undquivOcal declara-
tons that the property conveyed by the
deed and named particularly in the n.
ventory was all the estate OF the assigner,
OF every character, which he owned, except
named property which was exempt from
forced sale. Held; Eheae papers should
be TAKEN together es the assignment and
the 0eed considered with reference TO them,
and thus consid ored, tho same Ia valid.
Ire statute makes provision with refer
enco to nOn-con.enting creditors. The
fact that some OF the non.consenting cred
itOra are non-reEidents does not inyO!iGate
the deed, Tor ia The deed Invalid because ~
stpuletes Tor release Of the debtor by the
congeDtiDg creditors. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALs.
Weller We. the State; from Kinney oouu-
ty. 0pinion by Wilson ]. The act oi
February 10, 1915, attaching Crocket 10
Kinney county for judicial purpose being
q civil statute oil general nature, was re'
pe0ed by aecJ.on Of the hnal ME oil lhe
revised atutgs. After this, The m)therl
county b., oul o. which O. county was Gre.
at,d, resumed Jurisdiction by tho operation |
OF law. IL April %, 1852 q. county vas /
regularly attached TO X. county Tor judicial I
purposes. ne indictment ia tiiia cato Mh1 /
presented 10 X county September -, 1852. I
IL charged the commission OF The OneuCl
in q. county on March 30, 1852, when X. .
county had no jurisdiction, but whom the /
iuritdlction existed in =. county. Bat a. II .
county never asserted jurisdiction OYef thi3 .
case, jurisdiction hereof attached 10 Is
county as soon as . county was attached 90
n for judicial purposes There is this ex.
ception 20 the great rule that the comics
sions of en- unwarned prisoner or such as
he made under promise or threat, 10 not
admissible against him; that is, IS 10 nduis-
able IL he makes statements tending TO es-
tablish hir guilt OF the ohense which are
afterward proved 20 be true. The rule
hitherto announced thst only as much Of
the statements % arc found 20 be true is
admissi ole, is restricted and all previous
decisions to that effect are oyerruled. The
true rule Ii, that when facts stated In the
confession are found 10 be true, and con-
yict the defendant With the offense, his en-
tire confession is admissible against him,
although made under promise or fear. AZ
firmed.
Opinion by Wilson, J. In order to receive
the attention OF the court, II a statement
OF facts 10 filed after the adjournment OF
court for the term, an order permitting the
same TO be done must appear Of record.
For the extent 10 which the court will look
into statement OF facts filed after djourn
mont of court wilhou. the necessary order,
see 7 ct. OF App, 202, 372, 5s2. In a felony
case, this court will revise the charge al the
court when 10 10 not warranted by the in
dictment, and when under any state OF
evidences it would be manifestly erroneous
ard may have prejudiced the rights OF the
ACCUSED. The indictment charged an as
eault to murder, and the conviction was
for aggravated assault. The charge OF the
oour{ authorised a finding OF guilty OF an
ssorsvated assault II the evidence showed
0tch TO have been made on A. or M.
Hsid; Error. Reversed and remandcd.
GSeurs VI. the State, from MoMullen
county. Opinion by Wilson. J.: On the
fsial the state proved over. objections OF de-
~ of fhs day on which deceased was
<xI{~S -,en.>so roda nm 10 where deceased