The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-03-18
THE COURTS.


Burteln vs. tho State, from Tarrant
county. Opinion by Wilson, J. The burg.
larry being alleged 10 nave been affected by
force, an entrance without the consent ol
the owner or occupant 10 not necessary 30
be alleged. The indictment charging the
entrance by force alone, IL was reversible
error ia the court TO charge upon any other
mode OF committing the burglary. Where
defendant STATED 10 a prisoner confined In
AL with him that the stolen property could
be- found in q certain house hid In n mat
trees, and the property was found in the
designated house, but not In tho specified
place. Held; The fellow prisoners testi-
moBy OF the statements Of defendant were
admissible. Reversed and remanded.
Campbell vs.. the State, from Harrir coun-
ty, Opinion by Hurt, J. The aspigu ment
OF error that the court erred in its charge
b. the jury" IS too general to require notice.
Express mHlice 10 an essential element in
murder of the first degree and can be prov
en- by acts oi enormiiy, cruelty, or deliber.
ale malignily, as well es by lying in wait,
antccedent menaces, former grudRes and
concerted schemes TO do deceased great bod
lily harm. Affirmed
Ratio d Co. VS.. st. Paul Insurance Co.,
from Galveston county. Opinion by VIII.
son, J. 10 IL shown by positive proof that
that the sale Of the insurance policies by
X. 10 MEG. WAC bona fide, for valuable
consideration upon McG'a part. he having
90 actual notice OF fraudulent intent BY X.
10 delay or defraud creditors. 1t devolVed
upon plaintiff to show that MnG. had sucl
constructive noLice, 90 by the use of ordi-
nary diligence, he might have ascertsined
the existence OF the unlawful intent OF X
II any. And tie court sitting without o
jury having determined the question, and
its being supported by evidence, we will
not disturb 1t. Affirmed
Burtsin Vs. the State, from Tarrant coun-
tY. Opinion by Wilson, !. This is o com
uanion case TO that OF the slmo style re-
Gently decided, The questions Of practice
arising in esch are identical and tho former
opinion applirH in this case. The evidence
in this case is also mauifestly insufficient as
IL is in those previously decided, Re-
versed ard iemanded
Tarciola Va. Bltchelar Bros. from GAL
weston county. On affirming this case at a
former dsy Of this term, the court passed
upon the question Of the partnership oil
appellees vel non alone. This motion for
rehearing is made TO induce the court to re.
verse the cause for want Of u proper and
sufficient appeal bond from the Justices TO
the county court. The record, however,
does not sustain the motion. Affirmed.
Csstellano vs.. the State, from Lavsca
county. Opinion by Hurt, J. The prosecu-
ton relied for q conviction solely upon the
ground OF possession Of recently stolen
property without explanation. Appellant
Vas confined In the court below 20 one ex.
PLANTATION, holding none other could be Civ.
en-. Held: The rule is, when one ID found in
possession OF stolen property recently after
the theft, and his possession Ia challenged
or disputed, any explanation made at that
lime can be used in evidence. either for de.
fendsnt or against him. Reversed and re.
mauded.