The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-26

ton for breaking and pulling down
fence under Art. 6S4 p. G. Held: The
| act OF the special session, 1884, approved
| and taking effect February 6. 1884, does
not repeal Article 64 =. c. When the
penalty for an otfense is prescribed by
one law and altered by subsequent
law, the penalty of such second law
snail not he inflicted for breach of the
law committed before the second shall
have taken effect. In every such case
the offender shall be tried under the law
in force when the otfense was com
mitted, and if convicted, punished nm
der that law, except that when by the
provisions of the second law the punish
ment of the oiiense is amehOraied, the
| defendant shall be punished under such
last enactment, unless he elects to re-
ceiVe the penalty prescribed by the law
in force when the otlense was com
nlitted, Affirmed.
TyneS VS.. the State, from Kaufman
county; opinion by White, p. j. Convic.
tion on an information under Article Sl3.
Z. G., emitting formal parts, the infOr-
nation charges, "Tha II. g. Tynes did,
IN tho county of kaufman, state OF
Texas, heretofore unlawfully send
written letter to j. d. Stocking, wherein
he threatened TO kill and
lniure said Stocking, and threatensned
to destroy the property of said Stocking
with view and purpose thereby to eI-
tort money from the said Stocking"
Held: The information is
fatally, both in failing to charge that the
act with which defendant was charged
was knowingly" and in falling to set
forth in ---- ----- the latter which con-
stitutesthe graveness of the offense. Re-
versed and dismissed.
Lewis VS.. the State, from Falls county.
Opinion by Hurt, ]. Conviction for
theft of cattle, the property OF CID Hun
ter. Said Hunter owned wearing
which was in tho habit Of returning
houe nightly. About November /, 1888,
he missed said yearling which returned
home IN about ten days. Upon its re
yarn II was nocked to another yearling,
and they were branded FE, which
brand was owned by ono Martin, who
received the yearling from defendant in
satisfaction of debt. Hunters brand
was --. Martin first saw the yearling
beng driven along the public road by
defendant and one Lowe. Defendant
called his attention TO the brand and
asked Martin if he could make any
thing but n XXI out OF it, Martin
thought it an Xxi brand. The yearling
WAS driven to Lewis pen and there
branded by him in his brand. At re-
quest Of Martin, defendant changed Che
mark into that of the former and ran
the iron through the old
brand. The yearling was
then carried and yoked to one
Of Martins and turned loose. When
next seen Mart II saw them at Hunters
who claimed the alleged stolen animals.
IT, was proposed 10 prove that when
Martin informed defendant Of Hunters
claim no STATED that he had purchased
rom droVer, who was driving his herd
through the country, several calves
that they were all branded XII.
and that he believed the yearling i'm
question to he one of the same yearlinus
so purchased by him" This The couri
refused. Held: Error. on Ct. App.,
90; 10 c. App, ssh, Reversed and re-
manded.
Bennett VS.. the State; from Fall.
county. Opinion by Hurst, i. Convic-
ton for theft OF watch. There il but
one question presented in the record
and that is, does the evidence show
voluntary return OF the watch in a rea-
sonAble time, and before any prosecu-
ton was commenced? Without goiug
into details, it is sufficient that the
court holds that IL does, and, therefore.
the verdict is against the evidence. Re
ve'ssd and romanded.