The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-20

" Kennedy VI. the State; from Mitchell
comfy. Opinion by White. ": J, ias
Of the court should submit lhe Jaw
tn ,yninh Tho evidences might be eonsldtiv,
h, Tho Jury and upon AL The issues ral eu
bv tue t1rooL aud where there 10 DOUBT az
"a wbefhrr an issue is or IL not dlreclly
Il, ado no tbe evidence, u would be tue pel-
fer ~ chce 10 solve tho doubt hy onarsins
fbr law with reference TO n. AN tne w
culpRt 9ry facts proven make the oa'o ~,
of cirsnmstauciM evidence. Ine oour.
! 4 lied 10 Charge tho law npphosnle " '"e"
,videuce Reversed and remandsd'
| DHnpoit ". The State; from Denton ceuh.
IT, Opinion hv Wilson, J, 10 proseonlo ions
liz th,u from tho person Il 10 hulllcleht
Az alice ln tho indictment thhI tuo
wNch an. ohuin alleged TO haye osen
.tolen were togr,hcr OF tho value o
! l35 wt,b0ut allp-ing the separate Value
the articles, and under such 40
lIo's,i5, iq tbs Indictment evidence oil
t,a celue 0fthe claim above Is admissible
I pr,.rcuiioue flg theft frOm the person
|,b,ro b. rn Frtding OF tho offence oy th'
Iv..iuc oftho property stolen. Aihrmeo.
Wc1iv Va. tho STATE; rom Tarrent couh
.y. Oniatan by White. p. J. Appellnu
gto convicted Tor circulating paper call.'
IN. j lurnai OF tho Old Army OF the kepun
lic Containing % slauder on oae Bufchhiii
Hold: Ttrre CON be no doubt hut that IN
W.pel,. nuDlicGtlon which Is the 5uplte
mater ol .uis quit Is libellous per,1s1t
The indioumeu, was sufficient itct1ishcs he
ofIsnc of libel The oy.ta the libel with
7 10 convict ntsding and exhibiting
{ fact hat delcnt,ri8t be aid so with infant
{ uniiolouAsreput0tlon OF tho libsl!td par.
. /. % yS.iT.ued.
5 .ofigomery Va. the State; from Kinney
rc3uuty. Conviction for life ,Grm
in the penitoniiary for the murder
OF James Quigley. The bills of e1-
odpsiuns taken 70 the solion Of the court, in
excluding evidence falling TO show 10 this
court, which was proposed to DO proven,
will not DO considered. The verdict OF tho
jury not beiug Ia proper form whom fret
returned, the court did not err IN allowing
the district attorney 10 put the same In
proper form. Affirmed.
Allen ys. tho state: from Mitchell couu.
ty. Opini0n by Whit, p. ]. The offidavit
of th" alleged owner 10 the effect that he
Sid not give his consent 90 the taking OF the
alleged stolen animal, aud that he knew
nothing mora aoont the ofrsnse, supple
mentei by an agreement signed by defend
sat, hia counsel, thu district attorney and
an attestug witneNe, Was admitted over
these objections OF defendant. /. That the
cBiendGnt had ths right 10 be confronted
ny the witnessed 2. That it was not proven
that defendant had slgned the agree
msnl. Held: /. A defendant in cfimin nal
case may waive any right except tha right
o. trial by Jury. 2 The second objection
Nng tantamOunt to % denial that the agree-
ment had been signed by defendant, which
brought into question tho execution OF the
instrument. If the execution of an instru.
meut Is 10 DO proved, the testimony
Of tho eublcrbing witness, Il
there be one, Is primary evil
a0.rna ,tr,ie., &. a.. ptoUn that tbea ,rndro
lion Of such evidence is beyond the party's
power. This rule applies here, for, not
withdrawing the instrument vas not sucb
10 required asubscrib bling witness. yet one
having subscribed and defendant attacking
the execution OF the instrument such wit
ness' testimony becomes primary. When
only oiTcumsiantial evidence is relied on,
rules Of Law governing such should be en-.
bodied In tho charge. Reversed and re.
mauded.
Benevides vs.. Toe s.gte from McMullen
county. Tie conviction in this case was
for murder Of the hrst degree aud the PEN
atty impo cd life term in the psnilen.
tiary. Essentially 1t is the seme case
as was previously before this court
at former term on appeal from
similar conviction. The defects of
the former appeal "a Texas court of ap-
ne sls) were cured on the last trial, aud no
error appearing, the judgment Is affirmed. |
Fisher va. the State ir1n Tom Green |
county. The conviction t-a case was for
the forgery OF check ~ ne name OF one
Kelly. The penalty imposed, two years
in the penitentiary. Tho questions raised |
turn upon objections raised to the subj
cheney OF the Indictment and the correct |
ness OF the courts charge. These are found |
TO be good and sufficient. Affirmed.
Maxwell vs. the State; from Preside |
county. Appellant was convicted OF ON as.
svxNa d. InNH 10
RYAls, and the punishmant assessed at two |
years imprisonment. Ths indictment 10
good aud sufficient; the charge OF the court |
enline thy correct, AID the evidence Of that |
conclusive character which warranty YER
Dict against defendant Affirmed
81 tillo ". the state; rom Uvalde coun-
ty Opinion by Whife,pi ]. Defendant pro-
20 cd TO prove 'lhgJ NJ tne time he return |
al, on the morning that he went out 10 |
hunt his two hories, aud after he returned |
t. the Knox rancho, chat he stated TO the |
witness that he had failed to find but one
81 hia HORSES. that some person mad taken |
lis other horse, and that he found the |
mare in question With his other horse, and |
fhat he intended 10 take said mare 10 |
Tor her. as he supposed the person who |
took hia uisei7g horse left the mare with |
this horse which was not taken; that de- |
PENDANT further stated, II he would find an |
owner for said more in Uya'de county, he |
would deliver eaid mare 10 aid owner; that
defendant did not claim To o IN said mare" !
IA ald: 1his Was admissible rs tending 20 /
show tho character Of defendants posses- |
zion, aud the intent with which he took |
her, and the court erred IL rejecting this /
evidence Reversed aud remanded.
Maxwell W. the State, from Preside |
county The indictment in this case |
charged The theft OF propsriy Of value ex-
caoiiog $50. The penalty imposed was
Two years. Imprisonment. The only issue |
ghs that oil intsnt, and a. this was fairly |
TO the jury, ana they having |
passed upon it, and the record presenting |
sufficient evidence TO support their finding, |
The iud sment is ali -med,
Resves We. the State; from Denton county. |
Conviction for sessult with intent to
assessed being two years imprison.
ment. The principal objection is
that which goes to the correctness
OF the courts charge, but the same is
not we'll taken. The charge is eminently |
norrect on the oifeneo for which the de-
fsndsnt IS convicted besides no exceptions
we're taken, nor contrary instructions
asked. The evidence IL amply sufficient
and clearly identifies defendant as tho
guilty party. Affirmed.
Dletz vs.. Dell; from Tarrant county.
This Is a motion TO affirm the Judgment OF
Tho lower court upon certificate without
reference to the merits Of the case. The
however, filed In this court In
with the motion OF appellee Is
detective In that II 10 not sealed with tie
such as Is required by the rules Of this
conrt aad the motion Is overruled.
Logue VS.. the State: from Denton county.
Appellant was convicted for an aggravated
assault and battery upon Mrs. Mary White,
he instrument used being an axe. Deiend-