The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-06

guilt or Innocence OF the defendant that
would influence his verdict, he was prop
erly rejected. The enforcement OF rules as
TO witnesses 10 \ matter largely within the
discretion OF the court, and iis action VIII
not be revised unlesb clear nbuse isthown,
The evidence, though ci n,nn,aS ~
Martinez vs. the State; from Bcxar coun'
by. Opinion by Willaon, J. The question
at tissue Is rs TO the value OF the property
as TO whether or not IL would constitute
felony or misdomsauor. Home witnesses
testified that its value wes $40, others that
| II was worth less. Held: II the article stolsn
has a market value, II Is 30 DO computed by
that vrlue; n not, and IL only has person
al value TO the owner, the standard would
he tho cost at which the same could be
replaced. Any evidences from which the
Jury can infer the value OF the stolen chat.
tel 10 competent; such az the owners esti'
mate OF it or tho opinion Of witnesses as TO
the value OF like articles. In the event the
defendnn. found the property alleged to
have been ptolen, the fraudulent intent
must exist at tho time OF the finding Re-
yersed and rOfLandsd
Trim bio ys. the State; from Rains conn
ty. Opinion by Wilson, J. An tndict-
ment for lhe offenge OF robbery which pur'
sues substantially the common Law preoe'
dents for TIM, oiianse IL sufficient. An IN
dictment IA sufficient whom charging rob.
hety ~ follows: "rhat Bill Trimble, late OF
the county Of Rains, and state OF Texas, on
Olaf dsy Of 0ctob Der, a ID. 1888 by assault and
by violence, aud putting ia fear OF life and
bodily injury, unlswiully aud fraudulent
Nv take from the petso1 aud possession OF
Henry Ivy. tl0 In money, etc. Reyersed
ard dismissed.
Howell vs.. the State; from rexar county.
Ooinion by Wilson, ]. Where there IL
4 suttan(p
case, but Inc state rules upon circumstan-
tial evidenc. alone for a conviction, q fall
ure 20 give IN charge She law applicable ~
vital error. When the evidence showed
that the principal witness WAS With appel
ant when no found the money alleged 70
have been stolen and made appellant d.
vide the money. his part OF which he gave
20 the owner. Held The evidence fairly
prevented the Issue of accom- plice or not
and tue court erred IN NOS giving proper
instructions concerning thu zane. Re-
yersed and remsnded.
Hernandez w. the State; from Bexsr
county. This is au appeal irora convlo'
ton for THEFT OF horse from DerniDg Ange
| log. The punishment assessed Is five years.
The record contains no bill Of exceptions
that can be considered. The charge OF she
court is IN every material respect good and
sufficient The evidence IL sufficient anu
| the verdict was rendered by u legal jury.
There is no error and the Judgment is az
| frmed. =,
equity. Opinion by Hurt, Where tho
appellant was convicted OF an aggravated
assault on an information charging the Gs'
suult to ba aggravated because made with
| . deadly weapon and the charge to the jury
| that "the use OF any dangerous weapon,
or the semblanca thereof. in an angry or
threatening manner with an latent TO
lar oil afatA rao
calculated to effect that object, comes with
| In the meaning of an assault" Held: Err
ror. Reversed and remauned.
Cullen u Henry vs.. Moore; from Gray
son county. This Is q suit for failure TO
com ply with contract OF sale OF certain
apples. Only two questions are involved
which relate to the correctness OF the charge
| of the evidence. The charge OF the court
being substantially correct and the sufti.
cheney OF the evidence having been passed
| ON in the court below and the verdict being
supported by the evidence, the judgment is
affirmed.
Hedges W.. the state; from Ell Paso
county. Motion 70 dismiss. Appellant was
convicted OF the theft of property Of more
value than $40 and his punishment assessed
at seven years imprisonment. Pending his
| appeal he escaped from cuetody ana the
states attorney for that reason moves to
difmiss the appeal. The proper AFFIDAVIT
of escape bsing on flo the motion IL granted
and the appeal dismissed.
George, alias Jesus Acosta vs.. the State;
/ from Bexar county. Conviction for THEFT
| OF Avant's horse aud mule. The plea Of
| former conviction Is net sustained. Ed
wards horse WAS stolen at a different time
and piece. There is no error In the charge
| OF the court, nor Refusal of the instructions
asked. While II was error for the cour: TO
refuse defendant an attachment for bic at
sent witnesses, yet ia this case IL was not
snch error as will reverse the cage, as no in'
Jury to defendant has resulted. Affirmed
| Wells We. thu STATE; from Bexar county
Conviction for theft OF hcrse, for which
seven years imprisonment was assessed
The record presents 10 bill OF exception.
nor statement offacts; and the indictment
and charge OF the court being good and
sufficient and no error appearing, the
jud,msut IL affirmed.
Brown VS.. the State; from Bexsr county
This is an appeal from conviction foi
theft from the peraon off watch and chat.
and money, for which the jury assessed th'
punishment 81 three years imprisonment
The record contains DO bill Of exceptions
and looking to the indictment and charge
OF the court and finding them both goot
aud sufficient and the evidence amply sup
porting the verdict and judgment, It Is Of