The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-03
THE COURTS.
Syllabus OF Decisions by the Courts Of
Inst Resort.
Legal Bnlr.Spli.tiug Me ly aud Accu>
ra,ely Performed.
The Lawyers and Laymsn's Calendar.
C)unT OF APPEALS.

tons raised IN the cnee nave Already Desn
passed upon bv tho court In the case OF
KAN W. the State, the opinion Ia which b as
h.en pubi.hsd VA ,nll In this paper, ~ d
up auIh,rsyo tht opinion, the case 10
hiIirmsd.
Frrell at al. VS.. he STATE; from johnson
county. This 10 nm appeal from indgmsut
by defsulL t-ken upon n foIislted bali bond
The scirn isoiss lated Ill toe fsc,s, and
contains all tue requisites demanded by
arlic'e ii3 q. G. L. Such being the case, =
Judgment by default In tuch Is hcre iaciaa
admits al! the iacie therein contained, and
ns there Is no error in this judgment, 1t is
City Of Dallss Va. Rose; from Dellss couu.
", This motion TO dismiss the appeal IN
this case Is based on tho sale ground tGst
the record does not contain any appeal bond
or show sgy ground upon which this couf!
Gu, assume Jurisdiction Of the appeal; but,
beld: The Clty lie relieved from Giving any
aposal bond, ETC., by the act Of August,
1876, amending the CITY charter, and there
fore this court assumes jurisdiction. Motion
TO dismiss overruied
Mahoa VS.. tho state; from Smith county
Appellant wss convicied Of mauslaughier
for the killing OF one II Chiiders. Tho OBJ
ieotiops taken to the charge Of the court are
untenable, besides no exceptions were
taken 70 the same Mt the
time, nor additional charges correcting the
suppoy,d errors sskes. The record con
tains no error OF which appellant can NJ
plain, and the evidence being amply sufh'
Glen, to support the judgment, the same
10 Eiii rn.ed.
Mnkinson vs.. the State; from Trsvia
county. On reheAfing: The alleged error
re,ied on In the motion for rehearing is
that In our former opinion this court
erred o holding that Il was not error IN
the court refusing To give In charge the law
cove rning cifcu mstantisl evidence, but
beld; That evidence not being entirely
circumstsntial, put direct and positive as
to tho commission OF the offence rs charged
by defendant. there was no error. Al
firmed.
Turner Va. the State; from Parker county.
This 10 q motion tor certiorsrt and for an
ordor commanding the district court 20
substitute certain pcpen IN the
case Destroyed by fac s'ter the
appeal in the cass wss perfected.
Az to the motion for csTtIorari, the name /.
granted, but Tor decision ON the other quss
ton raised, see opinion in same case upon
the merits inf.a. Motion Tor certiorkri
granted.
Nv. ON rsbesring. The appellant presents
no new questions for cur consideration In
his motion for rehesrng. and upon another
Investigation OF the record we still adhere
10 the form,r opinion, that the bill OF ex-
ceptions connot be- conbideTed, bavin. been
embodied in the statement VI facts Tiled
ai er term time, ana also that the evidence
is au,ply sufficient 20 support the verdict
and Judgment. Affirmed.
Touuisy ct al. VS.. the State; from Robert
son county, two cases. In tiisse cases tho
sssist..s attorney. general moves 10
dismiss ths appeal because the record
fails to show that any notice
Of appeal was given IN 'ns
no Jurisdiction, but appellants counss
coming on without motion from csrtiorar
affirming that such notice was duly given
the latter IL granted. Notion for csrtiorar
TeI.s Express company vs.. Dnprss ct al;
from johnson county. The motion 10 dismis'
this appeal 10 based upon tue want OF 4" SUI.
ficient appeal bond. The bond IL "copdi-
toned, that the appellant, the Texas Ex-
press company shall prosecute his appeal
with effect, and in case the Judgment of tho
court Of appeals shall be against them,
that they sha perform lite Judgment, ssu'
tepcs, or decree, and pay all sucn dansgss
as said conrt may award against them !"
Held sufficient. Motion to dismiss over.
ruled.
Escs Gao W. tho State; from Bexsr COUNT
On rehe.ring. The main ground Of tho mo
ton for rehesrins is thai appe,isss
WAS not present in court when
his motion for now triel but a.
the record does rot show thai he Was not
present, bis presence viii be presumed. Ac-
compxnying the motion for rehear,Dg IL The
affidavit OF appellants sttornev who waived
his preeancs in the court bell or 10 fhs rifecI
that such waiver was without authority,
hut even II We could consider such affidavit
the same shows that the motion tor new
trial was overruled on the merits which the
record sustsins os proper. Affirmed. trhis
is a death penalty.
ertson county. This Is All appeal from
judgment on a forfeited bail bond, and ,he
sole q ue,tion raised is as to the alleged or.
ror OF tbs court in admitting In evidence
the Indictment against the principal IN the
bond because the same was insufficient, but
heid: In pr9' eedins on iorlene, nsii
bond the suiici.ncy or insufliciepcv OF The
indictment cannot DO called in question by
the sureties. Affirmed.
Hester W.. the State; from Brown county.
Appellant was convicted OF an aggravated
assault and battery, for which he was hneu
$25 Tns pnrpor ed abatement OF iact,
contained In tho record, while signed and
agreed 10 by both the attorneys ior The
state and appellant, yet not being signed or
Approved Dy the Judge. cannot 10 con-
sidered. la The absence OF a statement of
facts. there being no error IN The iudict.
ment or charge Of the court, the judgment
Ham vs. the State; from Dallas county.
No. 20sS. This Is another Di the seriea OF
cases pstore this court, which are Consio erred
MS decided o- the opinion OF this court de-
livered at a former day OF this term nnd re-
ported 10 full IN this paper, aud upo1 al.
thoritv OF that case, Thu case must Do ana
is affirmed.
Cooper, alias Jackson, rom Falls
county. Opinion by White, p.i. VIE e
the case IS one Who'll Y OF orcumstintial
evidence, q failure OF the court 10 inslfuc.
the jury as 10 that character o! evidence,
is fundamental error Where dclendanf-
To- ssf..r W. IA
procure the testimony uf two
witnesses by. whom he could prove
that ON the day OF the alleged sale OF the
etol-n sairs al 10 e., he went to u. and lett
or ,hs tram towards o.; and no question OF
diligence was raised, and defendant was
identified alone by q who had nsvsr
known him before, ara who testified, "if
,sfendAnt wAs A. b. and took the train for
O.. then, on account of the distance, anu
becsuse OF tho time o, the day saw him In
the morning, II would he impossible Tor
him 10 bavs been IL the place sew him.
and at the. i'm. - Held. A rev trial shSu d
have bsen granted defendant. Reversed
and remaudsd.
Davidson vs.. the State. from Falls county.
Opinion by white, p.j Convi,tion fsr
obstructing public ROAD. For the mode
and manner BY which public roads are es-
tablished. zee Revised Statutes, articles
1850 TO 800 inclusive. O1e OF tn. pre-.
requisites 10, that the Jurors appointed to
lay out the road, shat, before proceeding
60 sct ~ such, take the prescribed oath.
REV. state. art. $685. In order 70 oondeins
priv ate property "a public uses the Law
must be strictly observed and pursuef.
and doing what the Law resuires 10 con-
disios subs.ouent TO suthori,v 20 condemn.
Nv. 4 W. Con. Rep. Sec. 3o3 J A public
road cannot no laid out anu established
withou, fret complying With the r~qui't-
ments Of ,h- law. t23 Texas, 292 TIE ju.