Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-14
THE HIGH ce1sns
Galveston Term 'a ,sa, d

~ AS much al IN ', \. Lssssa !.
ter OF ofiense, ..lntsra,n,y olhpi ~
and a charge which s,,ault % Ia!
ized the jury 10 t,n5 u enc NJ!
S m,,r,Io, Of = assault with ls dsi'sI,s|
sault, alone lound N
OF the intent 1 y indtr.s,
Yea as charged, wa, mas casss
had resulted, ana PROVIDED
event the defenda.aa mat b n.
a plesuIhe ca, to have v, sosld
ror' "Intenpi isthe a. e ,nNrder -
emit Of assault to ,nnrsss initial ih:s'
INQUIRY for the lurv "a "a his]
from the evidence. ' Il; detenIs!i
are . no presumpiiops of fs oscaes q
not entirely within tho ' AZ; silssI
jury in a criminal case as 1, a,spnal
i because they spring nat u ss''sAsds
words spoken. But 's :, conmial,
App AIS, governing evan Wv las 81,
For the rules on lie . s1s. sutl ID
see ID ct. App. $50. ~ &c! tlslcs5I
i>I D,, ana remanded. Wh,iM
ty.-This court repea,s i,ssIrali al
piled declaration that s > us 81 Vi.
a a criminal otlense, had u vSaVl y
mony an accomplice, ea ANN ,e'
unless such accomplice,s aruo' ~
corroborated by other ev iiSS,liE
ing to inculpate the pcc ,usIa
commission of the oilenss a
Under no circumstance ans ~
tent, can AN accomplish S NV, :.
himself. The corroboratio, w "'.ls
from another, and difIsr differ ~ s y
II must he criminative Of ina We
and must tend to connect ~. ,o
personally with the crime 'u m a
yiction for swindling wss h. ra' Y
the testimony fan accOmaln 4
is totally uncorroborated and s1 s'.
cannot stand. Reversed and ,'.,'l
ed. White, P. ]. "1u ''
Gallagher & Co. vs.. pou,,
Gonzales county.-Tbe n ,o,sl ~
miss the appeal in this csss 'I !,
taken, because the bond VA,
tional that the "obligors sbs s1 =, Is
cute their said appeal 10 ,i,ss
shall pay of and satisfy tbe i1ir,s'
which may be rendered agai irss n.
on such appeal.n Such i jn.st;;';
rs n bond for cost, because i W..
conditioned for the payment oi Y
AS supersedeas bond, Il Was NJ
Gent, because it does not lind M, M
obiigors to pay all such dsu,ss
the appellate court NAV award w.
VIZ al,silalt. "ShslI raI
pay off and satisfy the judpmentvlIs|
may be rendered against !heolcS Il
appeal is not the condition ,ns-.
ed by the statute, Appeal di.misi
Wilson, j.
Love VS.. State, from Gonzsle !,
essential i'll the prosecution q
charged with THEFT, TO eisbIsa \,
want Of consent to the taking, NJ,
such proof can be made
circl.metanlial evideuce, such sy;l,,I
can be resorted TO only when 4
shown that the owner, who slhtls
witness TO such fate, is iuaccmibsn
cannot be had by use OF ordinry d
gence. The law which exeluds \
evidence of ownership, brand. IA
than those recorded, makes DO mi
ion with regard tomarks. llelra.
ment in this case alleging 10 rals
proof Of marks on tie aIlestl IA
animal cannot be held q ysriihs 4
mark may be ployen willou.,esz
II u have been recorded, andht@
where dispute brlses aboul,srnrsl
in q civil case, that arsfersnc viz
book of marks and brands Is d6aa
of the question Of ownsnhe 4
versed anu remanded. White, W.
Ratio W.. State from Cons
cnunty-That the accused faras
taxable occupation without oClsl
u license therefor. aud that Il ~
allege the amount Of isxe DE
essential elements Of the oftls
nounced by article 10, Of lii ~
code, and must be allCgtdiH 4
dictment. Allegation thatthe tds
ant did williully and unlaglsll
medicated bittes TO one I. ios
comply with the rule ofplssdlHE
ton 8 ct., App. iG7 and l4tt Ale
on the subject. Reyefstd sm
manded. Wilson, J.
Fisher & Weiss VS.. BOzarlh. a ,,,
nell u Co. ON rehearing. From W.. w.
ington county. The suslssl ~ w
of the Original suit was the insl
ness of Il to Med. & Co. BN'Ns
ject matter involved in uiis w.
The value of the properly lt'Aa
under the distress wa rabl
which Med. Il Go. claimed, az
intervention sought to eniaIess,a. S W \
ior lien. II was In excess o. w IN
hence this court had jnrisillsellV'ss.,
and in support Of Is !. W. IA
tiun this court is emposeitu W. ,.;,s
tsin allldayita. The Original s
To the effect that Med 4 g.. =
interest in the subject MAZE.
original suit, aud hence 20 ,.l ~ Y
is adhered TO. i W.S.
doctrine is announced IN WE
condensed reports ~
Motion ovenuled. Wllsenl : ~,
B1ntain rs. State, iIoil
county This is tie fourth o.. el@ n
Of cases against this deieiusa Ii
Ing out Of The theft OF 4 ss III
lhe subsequent disposition . =
motion for a continuance ~ ~
Inc absence of desired wNhsss
nronerly oyerruled, since 10 "
1fthe evidence adducsd, ns Va
,f the desired witnesses wl s,'si
DIV true. For the same is ~ ~
for u new tflai ,N ia ~
The penalty imposed ID w.. .a,t,.,
even years in the peh''s1'
irmed. ,I.,ts n
Jones VS.. State, from ha -, u
The conviction in TINS d N
.heft from the person o. pnI trjt>
ain money. The recois a b
leilher a statement OF iacs Tx, X
exception. In such ca ~, I'd ss;
lictinent and charge o. .us s,,I
,e scrutinized for fin ds'I,,',s
rhe record il this case Ian XIII