The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-08
THE COURTS.
COURT OF APPEALS.

from Caldwell county. Affirmed.
Oral opinion by Judge Hurt. Sen
tence years for assault with intent
to murder.
John Williams alias J. T. Pybron
VS.. state from Colorado county. At
tirmed. Oral opinion by Judge Hurt.
sentence 80 years for robbery.
Secundino EScorino VS.. state from
Bexar county. Affirmed. Written
opinion by Judge Hurt. Death SEN
tence.
Il. & T. G. R'y Co. VS.. II. B. Hol- |
from Grayson county; re-
yersnd and remanded, Written opin-
ion 10y Judge Hurt.
Wesley Smith VS.. State, from Bowie
county; affirmed. Oral opinion by
Judge Wilson. Sentence two years,
for assault with intent to murder.
Bud Chapman VS.. State, from At
ascosa county; affirmed. Written
opinion by Judge Wilson. Misdc-
meanor.
w. A. Thompson vs.. State, from Lee
county; affirmed. Written opinion
by Judge Wilson. Sentence ten
years, for theft of horse.
Rainey Fentre ct al. VS.. State,
from BeXar county; affirmed. Written
opinion by Judge Wilson. Quest. on
as to the sufficiency of a bail bond.
Held: The bond is sufficient.
Herman Brinkerton VS.. State, from
Galveston county; reversed and re-
manded. Written opinion by Judge
Wilson. Charge of obstructing a
road. Conviction set aside and cause
remanded for a second time for trial
in accordance with opinion on former
appeal, to be found in IA Texas, Court
IF Appeals Reports, page 81.
Texas IL Pacific railway company
VS.. Gill & Beauchamp, from Fannin
county; Affirmed. Written opinion
by Judge Wilson. Judgment against
the company for 1854 40 for damages
to crops on account of failure by the
company to keep its stock gaps in re-
pair.
Galveston, Harrisburg 81 San Anto-
Mo railway company VS.. L. q. Jack
son, from Caldwell county; Affirmed.
Written opinion by Judge Wilson,
Isaac Shaw KS. w. A. Adams ct al,
from Dallas county reversed and re-
manded. Written opinion by Judge
| Wilson. Defendants in error recov-
cred Judgment for 1926 and costs for
personal property, which plaintiff re-
| fused to deliver. 1t cannot be deter
mined from the petition and deed of
trust whether the property sued for
was the same conveyed by the deed.
Jesse Brawlie VS.. State, from Coleman
county. Appeal dismissed on account
of escape of the iparty.
Andrew Neal VS.. State, from Cole
man county. Appeal dismissed on ac-
count of escape of the party.
In the Escorino case, the appellant
was convicted and sentenced to death
for the murder of Ventura del Tore
in Bexar county. Allegations of error
are that the verdict was not translated
to defendant; that he was not present
in court when motion for new tria
was oVerruled, his presence having
been waived by his council instead Of
by himself as the law requires; an(
that the court erred in the motion fol
new trial in overriding statement:
rs to defendants counseIS neglect tt
have certain witnesses served with
process. 1t is urged, says Judge Hart
by the counsel for defendant that the
word "cabron," (meaning, it is admit
ted, a man who consents to the proSti
tuition of his wife) was an insult tt
defendants wife, and that if the kill
ing was induced by this it would no
be murder but manslaughter, and tina
, therefore the court erred in failing t
charge the law relative to this matter
Held: No objection being raised a
the time of the ruling, it must be mad
to appear to this court that the erro
or omission was calculated to ipiur
the rights of defendant. The proc
fails 10 show that it was positiyel,
J Del Zorro who used the insulting
word, and Escorino's motion for
new trial at which he would prov
that Del Zorro and his friends ha
threat ened to run him out of tn
county, discloses the true motive o
the homicide to be bloody revenge
Hence, the omission on the charg
complained of was not calculated t
injure the rights of defendant.
AS to not ttanslating the verdic
and non-presence of defendant whe
/ tile matter tor new trial was over
ruled, there being no bill of exception
J reserved, the court says Judge Han
: will not proceed, upon the assumption
, that everything stated in the motto
is true or necessary. The presumI
ton is that counsel was authorize
by defendant to make the waiver, an
, that defendant is bound by it unles
> he shows that in fact he did not au
, thorize it. Held: There being moth
| ing in the record showing that dc
fl ndant was not present when hi
motion for new trial was overrulet
the assignment is not well takeI
Further held: The facts which appel
liant swears he would establish on
new trial would not tend to justif
or eXtenuate the offence.
In Chapman VS.. state, Chapman wa
. fined $40 for gambling, and pleaded t.
the jurisdiction of the court. Tn
case, says Judge Wilson, being mis-
demeanor over which, under the con
stitution the county and justice
courts have concurrent jurisdiction
exclusive of the district courts, tn
conviction cannot be sustained unles
jurisdiction had been confrred upol
; the district court of Atascosa county
under article 5, section %, of the con
stitution. Held: This was done b,
the act of March 16, 1888, which di
vests the county court of AtaScoS;
county of jurisdiction over crimina
cases. In the act where it reads "AnC
district courts shall have and exerciS,
all the civil and criminal jurisdiction
heretofore vested in said county court
by the constitution and laws, and MOI
Invested by this act, the word mot
evidently was placed where 1t wa:
found, though mistake, and if regard
ed as Intentionally placed there would
defeat the manifestintention and pur
pose of the act. 1t is proper in con.
STRUNG the statute for the court tC
disregard this word in order that the
plain intent of the law may be made
to prevail. The court did not err in
overruling defendants plea to juris-
dictloD.
In the Hollingsworth case plaintiff
sued the Cent? al railroad for $4786C
damages caused by burning Of his
property caused by sparks from 10
connective setting fire to grass and
weeds which it is alleged the company
had negligently suffered to grow up
and become dry on its road bed. There
was verdict and judgment for plaintiff
for $314.66. The judgment is revers-
ed and cause remanded because the
| necessary parties were not made plain
tiffS. The rule that all who are joint
ly interested must join in the suit, and