The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-06
THE COURTS.
Late D,clslons from the Snp'riOr
Courts NJ Austin.
Legal Lore, Illuminated by the Electric
Light
or Nineteenth Century Jurisprudence.
COURT or APPEALS.

II, Levins niiss Maxim Va. the btate
from brown county: Convic lon Tor thef
Of horse, belonging 10 one uis'. the 70
cord on ,rs appesl brought before US con
tains no | Ills Of exception, so the action o
the court IN overriding defendnnts motion
for contipua nce, nor TO It's rulipgs on Tn.
admission, or exclusion OF evidence And
the evidence being amply sufficient 10 sup
Po.t ire verde, and JUDGMENT and The
the charge OF the o,urt iull and correct
and no fundamental error being apparent
OF REGARD, The Judgment Ii affirmed.
Pat w this state: from Falls county
This appsllant wan COZ v,cted OF the bur-
glory OF Bunk's smoke house, for which the
Jury assessed tbe punishment OF hve years
imprisonment In he peDitentihry. Held
We see no error Ia tine charge OF the court
excepted IT,. The evidence, W" think, "
amply sufficient to support the verdict and
iudsm, mt, and the question OF the deond'
ants purchase OF the bacon was aiTly sub
mitt,d to tao jury, who found against him.
There 10 no error, and the judgment Ia
affirmed.
Raazan Va. the State: from Kendall ooun.
ty. This appellant Is before this court APP
healing from a conviction for the theft o,
sh,ep. md upon careful inspect ion Of the
reccrdg, tho courts holds that the volnn-
tary statement OF defendant was properly
admitted In evidence; that the charge OF
the court Ia not erroneous 10 any material
plsin; that the evidence In ami ly sufficient
to su mort the verdict and that the jddg
ment should he and is sflifmed.
smith VS.. tho State; from Hill county
App.l liant was convicted Of the murder OF
VI. Gresham, 10 Aquills, Hill county,
pr,soument In the penitenttary. The
courts charge is full and correct; the evi.
depce ampis to support the verdict. and
besides no exceptions were taken to the
indictment, charge OF the court, or 10 the
admi ssiop, or exclusion OF evioepce and
there appearing no fundamental error, the
judgment Is affirmed.
Darlington w. Ellison; from Robertson
county. This motion to dismiss Is based
upon the fact that the appeal bond mis-
describes The judgment. In that, frs, IL
rscites judgment against q. and her nus
band, when tue judgment wac rendered
pgainst Q, rs I'ircipal, and q. aud NJ. as
surstles on the claim bond. Second, II
describes a Judgment for $50 and costs,
when the Judgment was for $50 aud IS be.
ing 10 per csnt. damages aud all costs.
Held, the motion is well taken. Appeal
dismissed.
Workman vs. the State; from Bosque
county. This appellant appeals from acYI-
yiction for swearing in a public assem- bly,,
the same being at a picnic he being fined
1926 therefor. The Information upon which
the conviction is based corn plies with the
requirement. OF tie law. The charge Of the
court is full, fair and correct. and the ey'-
dence being amply sufficient 10 support the
judgment. the same Is affirmed.
Oscar vs.. the state; from Robartsen
county. This 10 an appeal from a convic.
tion Tor playing card-, for which fine OF
$lU vas assessed. The indictment is SUI.
fcieut, the charge OF the court Is full and
correct and the evidence amply sufiicisnt
TO support the Judgment. The record
shows That the county court very properly
acquired Jurisdiction OF the Case. Al
frmed.
Leyendecker va. the State; from Bell
county. Conviction for unlswtully carry.
ing q pistol. The question az to whether
or not the defendant was travelling" was
properly submitted to the july, who fsund
against the defendant. 1hs term OF the
September, 1883. was legal ard proper; the
amend ment 10 the constitution, charging
the terms Of that court not having taken
effect until the 23t OF thst month Al
firmed.
Moore vs. the State; from Milan county.
Conviction for the theft OF hcow belonging
to Dan Rowland. TIE case was not one OF
oiroum stantisl evidence alone, and, there
fore, there was no error IN the charge OF
the court An unrecorded brand 10 evil
dence Oi identity but not Of ownership
The ne WY discovered evids nee sought by
thu motion tor continuance would not prob
ably change the result. ss the same wes
merely cumulative. Affirmed.
Bfoadnax We. the State; from Frlo coun.
ty. Appellant prosecutes this appeal from
q conviction Tor the theft OF morse be-
longing 10 one CrsLch, his punishment bs.
ing assessed at ten wears imprisonment in
the penitentiary. the application for coh'
tinuAnce was properly overruled, as the
same did not show due diligence. The
charge Of the court 10 full and correct. the
Indictment good and the evidence amply
sufficient to srppor; the Judgment, which
Is affirmed.
Hubbard va the S'ate from Boil county.
Appellant was convicteu for an aggravated
assault and battery Oh oo- ~ Ter. The In
dictment is good and sufficient. There IL
no error IN the charge o. the court, nor WAS
any exception taken thereto. Inc exc.p'
tions taken to the evidence are not svAil.
able, the evidences showing a pre- neditated
and aggravated assault by two men ON an
old man. Affirmed.
Zo,licofier vs. the State; from Hill county.
Opinion by Wilson, J. This conviction Is
based upon the testimony OF one Green,
whose evidence upquestionably shows him
to be an accompiics. He, with Others, was
indicted jointly for the same offence and
turned states evidence TO escape punish
ment. Such being the case, there being no ]
corra borating testimony duplicating de-
fendapt with the offence committed the
Judgment is without sufficient EVIL
dence TO support it and the Judgment Is
reversed and the cause remsnded.
Porter VS. tina State: from Travis eouctv.
Opin,on nv WillAon ]. December II, 1888,
sDoelisnt WAS committed TO all In de'auit
OF bail ny Justice OF the Pose i Tor ihsi.
OF a horse. The grand jlry Mt the next
term OF court after commitmrft iaileu 10
rstura an Indictment against appellant on
this charge, but by mistake returned NIL
a. a a. s.fn nd In lac
being ascertained after the grand jury, vas
ischsrgsd, the states attorney moved the
court to mold appellant until the next 'rn
of tie grand jury. This the court
refused. Thereupon IN aiiidsvit "ss
sworn ont before Justice Il and appellaht
was bound over to appear before mo eranu
jury. He sued out q writ OF habeas corpus
before the distric, judge, who also held him
under bail and he now appeals to this
court A trial on the merits IL not consic-
cred. Tho sole question is, docs res nolu
dicata, as applic iole to this case, apply 10
jusuces' ooJrts sitting rs examining courtsY
Held, II does not and there was no error IN
the district courts action in holding ap.
nell ant under bail. Affirmed.
Stamford W. the State: rom bosque
county. Opioion by Wilson j. Convic-
ton on m Information charging appellant
with pursuing the occupation OF selling III.
toxicnt,pg liquors In qusnt,ties OF one
Quart wituout fi's, ob,aining a licetss there
for, said occupation being taxable: etc.
To. evidences showed that he sold four
bottles of medIcatsd sitter, and had never
sold or offered to cell any other LIQUORS
within the knowledge OF the Witnesses:
that the bitters were intoxicating liquor
that appellant wss Q resident farmer
Of OorysII c,uoty. The court charged the
Jury In eflsot that defendant had violated
the Law; thst single sale Of Intoxicating
llqnors constituted the ofeoc: charged: