Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-31
COURT or APPEALS.

DhItu W.. oihNt, iIOlH thuIItSNIt
county.-The Indictment charged theft
of cotton. Objection urged is that
there is fatal variance between the
allegations in the indictment AS To
ownership and the proof. But there is
enough evidence to show n special pos
session in the party in whom owner
ship is alleged, which is sufficient to
sus ain the allegation. While as a
general rule the want OF consent OF all
the owners must be proved, the rule
cannot hold good in this case mas
much as it appears that c., the copart-
ner, was party to the taking. The
rule is that no person can be convicted
OF theft by taking property belonging
to himself except in the cases encmer-
ated in the statute (P. &. Art $50.
The evidence sustains the conviction.
Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Harris W.. State, from Mc1ennan
county.-On Rehearing. The assump-
that in considering the appeal in
this case originally is not maintains
Bile. The various errors assigned upon
the original appeal involved exactly
the same questions presented in this
motion for rehearing But in view OF
the urgency of counsel in the interest
of their client, the court has carefully
recousidered the questions raised hut
find no reason To- alter the original
opinion, Motion oyerruled. Hurt j.
Wheeler w, State, from Smith coun-
fy -rhe conviction was for theft from
the person, the evidence showing
that the defendant snatched
the pocket book from
the hands Of the injured party, with
which he started towards the door of
the house In which the episode oc-
Cured. Being called TO by L., the in
iured party, to stop, he replied: -
will tie it for you" continuing towards
the door. Here he was confronted by
another, who ordered him to return
the money to the owner, whereupon
he returned the book, from which sub
seduently it was found q ten dollar
bill had been abstracted. Held, that
such facts demanded no charge upon
the law Involuntary return OF stolen
nroneIty. Nor WAS the case one
wherein the law OF circumstantial evil
dence should have been given. Inc
newly discovered evidence set up for
new trial being not probably true when
considered in the light OF the clrcum'
stances surrounding the case, and there
being a total want Of diligence In op'
tanning it, or trying TO, on the triGlr
the new trial was properly refused
Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Robertson ct al. VS.. Breedlove ct al.,
from Washington county.-Tbe ques,
ton is, Had Washington county o.
the time the commissioners court TOOK
action upon the subject, power To issue
negotiable bonds, redeemable AFTER ten
and fifteen wears and bearing Interest
| for the purpose Of erecting couri
[ house, and 10 levy an annual tax OF
| one-fourth per cent. to pay accruihS
| interest and provide n sinking lund
| for redemption? Collateral questions
arising upon the record are unlmpor'
tant. Sec o, art. S, OF the constitution
authorizes counties TO levy tax OF nol
more than fifty cents on the hundred
dollars for the erection OF public build,
jnps. The same authority Is reiterated
in Eject in art. 1915 OF the Revised
| statutes. and in sec. /, chap. VI. OF the
act of 1879. by ait, 1914 Revised Stat
utes II il made the duty OF commits
sioners courts to provide and keep IN
ranair court houses, jails and all neces'
sary public buildings. none OF ihese
sections however, give power W iss"e
bonds or borrow money lor lua ~
pose OF erecting court houses, ann ~ y
held that il Washington county poss.sS'
ed this power at the time IL ,ooh W,
action sought to be enloiheu, ~ inua,
have been by virtue OF an iinpiieu II,
not an express authority. IN al go
crate opinion reviewing .he ssne ~
principle and the authoriiies % aa1 WI yI
rious states thereon, Chiei uslies Mt,,
lie holds that this Implied sulpoi't =,
cannot he deduced from our s9s,eln "
laws, and that the demurrer " VI. p.,
| tition for injunction was erroiiepI
sustained. Reversed ana Ieni .,,.a., vz
East Line d Red River kaii"ay III, III.
| Harper and wife, from Marion IN, n,s
was AN action brought by the app'i and
10 recover damages, ooth ac.ua 81" a.
exemplary, for the death, thious', ,ha;,
nellant's negligent agency, VI as a
son. who ran on appeise M w" ~. :" ~ !
Tinted States mail agent 70 wy n
titlon the appellant answered ~ go
eral demurrer and genera, uen 20,
nleaded specially that the ceeeas,su 80
~ the time OF MS uentu 81 az
for three years, prior tharshy
mad Travelled IL as such wa. ne Je,,,b
r had assumed ell risk OF injury OF 49,
The special plea further set Wy cA =, m,
ness aud negligsnce on lle pa'i % va.
deceased. in that ut the tlnle ~ IN,
throwrI from the car ana ieceN. ~
f,tal injury he was sishulng o,,sc
,, Innr of the mail car. III lul,uel ~.
, ed that the defendant wen hnem ,oad '
= condition OF the track, ana 'lat o'o .'ar
gauge cars were being run 80 ,.a,dlne
w w,na ru M ovsrihe line The pia WI
,,ns ,alIeoed wi.lml uct Of gros; nss !,
sli,s si oa The part Of the defendant n, u
ssn, nee e ~ Tie broad-gauge cars oysi ' ~
mar row track. Exemplary d da,,
: ayes In he sum Of 50, oeo; actual ,, usua
i ayes i'm the sum OF 81 300, apo leos1.
- =. t;,.,ltl, Page.