The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-22

COOh4'
In the case of J. w. Hannig '
Sanford & Sop, judgment was W
terday given for plaintiff for 1897.
and II per cent. interest, and S49.
attorneys fees.
In the case of j. NJ. Morphis v
John Stringer and wife, suit for tire
pass TO try title to half lot OF gIour
in this city, Judgment of non-sult W.
taken by plaintiff.
COUNTY COURT.
In this court Mr.. IL. b. Anderson
an interpreter is adjudged lunatl
So also was colored man n.tn cd Get
Sims.
The county clerk issued marriag
license to Max Arlett and France
Sutor.
| COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The county treasurer's report wa
presented yesterday and approved. L
shows:
Present balance-general revenue, 6,G94 I
Account OF court house and jail fund, XXI Z
Account of school fund, - = !.
Account of road and bridge fund ...... 40 :
A jury was appointed to view out ;
road from the Three Islands to tn
Austin and Hogg-Eye road, to inter
sect the road from there to the Manor
road, so as to give a more direct route
through from the Three Islands tC
Manor.
The county surveyor filed his report
covering about ten pages, giving the
field notes of the survey to define the
dividing line between Travis and
Williamson counties. The report was
ordered to be recorded.
Aflirmed-R. b. Lague VS.. State
Denton county; S. Benevides VS.
State, from McMullen; J. III. Fisher
vs.. State, from Tom Green; Chas
Bennett VS.. State, from Denton; Her
man Weller VS.. State, from Kinney;
George Montgomery VS.. State. from
Kinney; Lymus MAXWELL VS.. State,
from Presidio; Marion Reeves VS..
State, from Denton; Abe Woody VS..
State, from Tarrant.
In the last Woody was fined $3.50
for libel.
Reversed and dismissed-J. H.
Brown ct al. vs.. State, from Young;
Certificate dismissed: Charlie
DieteZ VS.. Marion Deel from Tarrant
as the rules required.
REVERSED AND REMANDED:
j. H. Brown VS.. State from Young
county; Jose Angel Sagura from Nc
Mullen county; Walter Kennada VS..
state from Mitchell county; Santiago
Salt Ito vs.. state from Uvalde county;
John Allen VS.. state from Mitchell
county.
In the Benevides case the sentence
is for life for murder; in the Fisher
case two years for forgery; in the
Bennett case three years for theft; in
the Weller case for life for murder; in
Montgomery for life for murder; in
the Maxwell case seven years for
theft; in the Reeves case two years
for assault with intent to murder.
In the case of j. II. Brown ct al. the
Indictment was for wilfully iDjuring
and defacing the school house known
as the Flat Rock school house, said
house being then and there a public
school house, and was then and there
held by Young county as public
school house against the peace and
dignity of the state.
The Indictment was brought under
article Alt, penal code. Held: The in
dictment is defective in not alleging
that the building charged to have
been injured was "a public building"
Or that it was held for public use.
White, p. j.
In the case of j. II. Brown VS.. the
state, the Indictment was for assault
with intent to murder one S. b. Alli-
son. The charge of the court was that
f the defendant committed the as
;ault either upon the said S. b. Ali
ION, or upon one Munnerlyn he would
De guilty as charged. Held:
As defendant was charged
with an assault upon Allison. under
10 state of evidence could he be legally
convicted under that Indictment Of an
assault upon Munnerlyn, or any other
Z. j.
In the Allen case, the state offered
n evidence the affidavit of Slaughter,
he alleged owner of the stolen ami
nal, to the effect that he had never
yiven the defendant his consent to
he taking of the animal. To this
lffidavit was attached written agree
nent signed by district attorney, de
,endant and his attorneys, that this
affidavit should be read as Slaughter'S
evidence, the same is if personally
tated in court on the trial. 1t was
objected by defendant, to the intro
luction of the affidavit and agree
nent: First, that defendant had the
light to be confronted by the wit
1esses against him. Second, 1t was
lot proven that defendant had ever
iigned the agreement that the same
hould be read in evidence. These
objections this court hold were i'm
overruled. G. Q. +, article
3, cited as to the first objection. AS to
he second objection, Held that proof
must have been made before It's intro
iuction as evidence was admissible
where the objection to its introduction
;alled its execution into question, as
n this instance, and the court erred
n its admission and without the
necessary proof of execution. Cited
White VS.. Holiday, 20 Texas 679-
White, p. j.
In the Sagura case, it appears from
, bill of Exceptions in the record, as
stated in the opinion of this court,
hat upon the trial of this case the
state proved by one Ussery, that on
the morning of the day that the de-
ceased. John Williams, was killed, he
'Ussery) rode up to where the de-
ceased was at work; that deceased
seemed agitated and excited, and told
witness that he (deceased) was afraid
Of that Mexican, meaning the defend
ant; that this was said about an hour
before deceased was shot and killed;
that defendant was at the time In
sight, but not near enough to hear the
This was objected to as
hearsay, non res gestR, and because
the statements of deceased were not
made in the presence of the defend
ant. Held: The court erred in admit
ting the the testimony, as 1t was
clearly hearsay, and did not come
within any of the exceptions to the
general rule which rejects hearsay ev-
idence. Campbell VS.. State, 3 Tex.
Court of Appeals 202; Anderson VS..
State, IA Tex. Court of Appeals, 40;
Hammel VS.. State. Id. 326. Wilson, j.
In the Kenneda case it is held that
the fact that the court failed to In
struct the jury with regard to circum-
stantial testimony is fatal to the con.
yiction. Held: Possession of property
but recently stolen Is but q circum-
stance conducting to establish guilt
The case of John Allen VS.. the Stats
lust decided and authorities therein
cited are referred to ON this point
White. 2. ].
In the Saltillo case proposition tt
show bv one Kalsado that defendant
had stated to that witness that he ode
fendadt) did not claim to own thu
mare in question, and found he
with horse of his, ETC.. was overrulet
by the court. Held: This was error