Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-08

Az, -
, tnitle, but 9 title depend.n, ~
the establishment ~ lucent alop,
can scarcely be imae,s, secret tlos, =
could have been , ens.' ,hat aps,u
greater exercise Of or rduIau'ed i.
than shown by the yao,ln div
tained the exislensscc' s 70 hass ss
claim. A charge in = c, q aplsls
rect in itself, win not si'I ~ cay ~
reversal, in the absen..a" e ground Z
or cIe additional charge asked q esslss
clearly ,,';air appears that ,bs ullIs I
i. J.. irmed. w.
Buntain VS.. the sta,o
epo county is a conlp ' ,rGn l,ral'
ment in the latter h ap,a' the NIL
this, theft; The same s o. burglar, \
practice arise in both csss !iuesll,a n
those involved in hi; s'ss, and pa|
court refers to The cass appeal MI
reported above. But tba u - oriElS
this case is entirely 'sis,aasas
port the verdict Of convicsl,a.n
such cases it is the jmns,.a',,on sltk
This shis court to reverse, h oTsvss,d 1td|
cious may be surronn JJM,esei nj
stances. Reversed and ties
Wilson, j. anu rsaan4
Buntain VS.. the State f,,.
county.-This is the third Lay, " :, iiias|
of cases against the same a :. la q sts
eided to-day. In this case spIbp KS ,al,l
TO quash the indictment AND ~ 4, la'l
ton in arrest of judgment wv, .ls a.
~ overruled. The burglar =, y F'Gs-
legged to have been comm its dUss u
II Is not necessary to alIers s. ~ 'Vl Y,
into the car without the e y ~ ! ~
owner or occupant. ()blas,e
made to the statement 4 ! II
that defendant, while copfns sslas
told him that the chain taIss
GREETED In a mattress, In I NJ ~
While 1t was not found IN 4
tress, but in the wall of j NJ.
the declaration occasioned 4.
of j. Ms. house and the dc @s q
the chain, and hence the eviS,n
admissible Is ct. App. 5lOlnd~S'
tiles cited. The exhibiliaS j !.
watch and chain alleged 10 Is X.
to tue jury, their value hsyis, {
proved, was not improper, 4.
modes of committing burglar = :, /
fined by the statute--foIce, tIss''
fraud. The indictment c6srvi,,
entry by force alone, not ouly MI
dence, but the charge Of tteM,
should have been confined "a |,
method. 1t was, Therefore, sr,,
the court to charge upon all tLen''
Of entry. BEYOND this, The nm.
is insufficient to support The ygi,
Reversed and remanded. Willw
Ratio * Co. VS.. st. Paul Fin +
Marine company, and McGreror, }
nishee, from Galveston couDtg.-H
is positive evidence in this retull
the sale OF the policies Of lnsuurs
*. d. MEG. was a bons lide saIs /,
valuable consideration, and yit:
actual notice on the part Of NtG
any fraudulent intent on lhe M
X. to hinder or defrsud crts
Whether or not MEG. bad csus5
tive notice of such fraudulent N
or might, by diligence, have sssI
ed the fact, was a question /,
Jury, or the judge sitting wthx
jury. 1t devolved upon appsIhSs
establish such proposition BY i
ponderance of evidence, in als
sustain it, because fraud, insui
when ii is an issue, must be ID
and cannot be presumed. The \
discovered evidence upon Wild
motion for new trial was basst
proposed merely to discreditasn
and in no other way materi,l, u
ton was properly overruled Al
Wilson, j.
Farciola VS.. Bachelor Bra.
Galveston county.-The mo.inss
hearing was based upon ~ ~
that, in the opinion helslahn
cred from the bench, The out 4
looked the four assignmsukews
the effect that the appeal bon
from Justices court being b y
double the amount Of the lfa
the county court had nojurtdsa
the cause, and the motion 70 \
the Judgment and dismlsles
being made during the tern
county court at which The ~
therein was rendered shola
been sustained, and the ave-
said Justices court dismissed, !
otherwise. alleged in the na@
the court appeared to have -
hended the statement IN W. y
brief. But held, that the naIs
fully considered. Motion 0'sas