The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-07-03

his land; the ditch it is further all.ved.
having caused the land to wash away
to considerable extent 10y reason of
the growing volume of water. Opin-
ion by Judge Wilson.
| reversed and remandesl: Steve Kill
man VS.. state, from Coleman county:
James Gillespie VS.. state, from Cole
man county.
reversed and dismissed: V. r.
SpringerIvs. state, from U valoe.colnty.
The charge was for keeping disor-
derby house, to.wit; "a house known
! as a common resort tor prosu utes."
Opinion by Judge Wilson. Held:
That the indictments are bad because
they fail to allege, as the present
statutes require, that the house was
Kept as common resort Tor both
prostitutes and vagabonds, the words
prostitutes" and "yagabonds" not be-
ing synonymous, and all prostitutes
not being common prost tutes within
the code definition of Migrants.
Reversed and remanded: Shorty
Livingstone VS.. State, from Johnson
county; Britton Turner vs. State, from
Houston county; Jim FL -rcher VS..
State, from Johnson county; Gus
rutherford VS.. State, from Harris
county; Horace Treadwell VS.. State.
from San Jacinto counV
The Rutherford case Was originally
reversed and remanded, on the ground
that the trial judge erred in failing to
charge the jury the law of manslaugh-
ter. The evidence on this appeal, SAYS
Judge Wilson, is substantially the
same as on the former appeal, and the
trial judge again failed to charge the
law of manslaughter, although spec
tally requested by the defendant TO do
SO, it being the opinion of the trial
Judge. as stated by that judge, that
the reason given in the opinion of the
court of appeals for its reversal is
based upon a statement of evidence.
which if believed by the jury to be
true. entitled the defendant to an ac-
quittal. Such state of case is so
manifestly self-defense that he
could not believe the court
of appeals intended to say that it
would Justify verdict of manslaugh-
ter. So he says he could not give the
charge.
The court of appeals insists
that a charge upon the
law of manslaughter is demanded by
the evidence. We have never held,
says Ju ige Wilson, as the learned
judge seems to think we have, that
the evidence would justify verdict
for manslaughter. 1t is not our pro-
vince to determine that question
when considering the law of the case,
nor was it the province of the trial
judge to determine that question
when instructing the jury. Accord
ing to the rule of law. il there is evil
dence in the case tending to raise the
issue of manslaughter, it is the duty
of the trial judge to charge the law
OF that offense regardless of his own
opinion as to whether or not such evil
dence would Justify conviction for
said offense. 1t is for the jury, and
not the court, to pass upon the Suffi-
cheney of the evidence.
The following cases were decided in
oral opinions:
Affirmed: Gulf, Colorado 81 Santa
Fe railway company, from Tarrant
county; A. RoSenstein ct al. VS.. Nave
& McCord, from Grayson county; w.
L. Caldwell VS.. Randall 81 Darling,
from Tarrant county; Cullers 81
Henry VS.. j. j. Moss and j. G. Golf,
from Grayson county; G. S. Beck ct al.
VS., j. A. Howell, from Collin county;
Chas. Diets ct al. VS.. Marion Dire,
from Tarrant county; w. M. Lang
ford VS.. state, from Grayson county;
J. ID. Robertson vs.. state, from Hays
county; Texas q Pacific railway COM
pany VS.. Wood 81 Bell, from Taylor
county; Houston 81 Texas Central rail-
road VS.. A. j. Steele, BraZos county;
w. M. Morrison VS.. State, from
Johnson county; j. j. Ramsey ct al,
VS. Scurlock & Hogue, from johnson
county; w. p. Galloway vs.. State, from
Anderson county.
Appeal is dismissed in the case of
G. j. Hart VS.. the State, from Gray
son county.
In the case of Jake Sutton VS.. State,
from Grayson county, motion for new
hearing was overruled.
The case of Robert Rubirth vs..
State, from Travis county, is submit
ted on the record for both parties; also
in the case of W. ID. Ward VS.. State,
from Medina county.
In the case of Frank Wynne VS..
State, from Walker county, motion
for rehearing is overruled:.
In the case of Mrs. M. Edwards VS..
EZ-l 81 Suggs. from Milan county,
IuuS luOub VI LliO lOWCi COutO 10 ACfOio-
ed and the cause remanded. Also in
case of Texas & Pacific railway COM
pany VS.. John Collins, from Dallas
county.
In the case of d. Noble Rowan VS..
Stephens Sc Co., from Gal
weston, (written opinion by II. 5.
Walker, presiding judge of the court
of commissioners of appeals), the case
having heretofore been referred to
the commissioners of appeals for their
examination and report thereon, and
the same having been duly consid-
cred and returned to this court,
together with the report and
opinion therein delivered by said
commissioners of appeals reversing
judgment of the county court of Cal
weston county, and rendering judg
ment therein, it is ordered adjudged
and decreed by this court that the
opinion and award of the commits
sioners of appeals reversing the judg-
ment of the county court, be adopted.
It is further ordered that the cause be
for further proceedings In
accordance with the opinion of this
court. and that the appellees, Shap-
ard, Stephens & Co., pay all costs.
The court OF appeals in this case
thus reverse the judgment ct the
lower court and remand the cause in
an opinion OF their own.
LAST DAY.
The supreme court meets this
morning at 10 o'clock to deliver opin-
ions and transact such other business
as may be necessary. AS soon there
after as the clerk can finish writing
up the minutes, they will be signed
and the court adjourn for the term.
All cases remaining on the docket
undisposed of will be transferred to
either Tyler or Galveston, and 1t is
supposed that by the next session at
this place, the supreme court will be
fully up with the docket for the first
time since the war.
SUPREME COURT.
City of Austin VS.. G. d. Johns. At
firmed. Opinion by associate Justice
West.
City of Galveston VS.. j. NJ. Barbour
and wife. Reversed and remainder.
Opinion by associate Justice Stayton.
VIM. Simpson VS.. w. w. Brother
ton from Fannin county. Reversed
and remanded. Opinion by chief jug
tice Willie.
b. f. Friend ct al. vs.. w. N. Miller
from Coryell county. CONTROVERSY as
to the ownership of certain goods lev
led on by the sheriff. Opinion by as
socIate Justice Stayton. Judgment
reversed and rendered against Mil
Ter.