The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-02-10
THE COURTS.
u or

COURT OF APPEALS.
Olouko vs.. the state, from Webb county.
Opinion by WI 'on. Where parties
are Jointly indicted Tor living together In
adultery, and the woman obtains n sever
anc- and noon her trial Is acquitted, the
man cam I plead such acquittal ~ bar oil
further prosecution as 10 himself. Inc
acquiirt tai OF his --cO.deiendaut coul In no
manner affect tue question OF his guilt, and
the case tuust be considered without refer
encs 10 such former acquitta' OF his co c
PENDANT. The wife's paramour being alone
on trial, the husband was a competent
witness against him The court er. ed in
reiusii y to charge as to the presum ption OF
Innocence and reasonable doHbt. A charge
that 'cirrumstantisl evidence is often a.
strong and conclusive upon the nnderst snd-
ing as direct and positive evidence" is a
charge directly upon the weight OF evil
depce. Reversed and ~remanded,.
Austin VS.. the stats, from Ellis county.
Opinion by w llson ]. Upon the trial be-
low, over the objections Of the defendant,
the states attorney read In evidence the
defendants Application for n c~ontinuance
made al u former term OF cOuit. This IL the
sols point relied upon for a reversol, and
noticed In the opinion. Held: The state.
ments In m application for a continuance
must be regarded and treated as being
W thin the meaning Of the term confession,
and as such are clearly inadmissable. Re
versrd and remapded.
Allen ct al. vs.. Thompson, from Houston
county. Opinion by Wilson J. In this
case appellee, by written contract, became
the tepan OF appellants, expressly ,a'torn'
lug 10 them AS Landlord ana acknowledging
that he received the premises from th,m rs
such. He entered upon, used, occupied
and epjoyed the premises under thGt con.
tract Tor the iuii period thereof. Held:
By virtue OF the contract the relation OF
landlord and tenant existed from thst time
between appellant and appe leo and II Is "a
general rule that a tanant cannot dispute
the title of the landlord. This rule ap-
pliss here as appellee does not bring MAI
self within any of the exceptions 10 the
rule. His plea does not ell'ge fraud on me
part OF appellants or taeir att irneys in pro.
curing the contract, nor does IL a!lege that
II was through mist AXE OF fact that toe con-
tract was made. Reversed and remsoded.
Baker vs.. the state. from Del tt county.
Conviction for burglary. TIL indictment
Is sufficient, IL not being necessary u aiiegs
that the stolen property was OF value; lLo
Ct. App. 462). The court cannot consider
the statement o! facts in the record, 1. be-
ins flied after the ADJOURNMENT OF court
without an order allowing such to be done
There being no statement OF facts that can
be considered, and 10 bill Of exceptions
we annot say that the court erred In It's
charge or rulings upon ev deDce. Affirmed,
Cook et al VS.. the state, from Jefferson
county. The Only question is as I , the SUI
tic,ency of the judgment nisi. 1t contains
al the requisites OF a go,d and s%uticie al
judgment nisi, but continues ut toe close
10 order scire facias to issue tor sureties Ia
appear at the next term, and show cause,
etc. Held: The later p-rt OF the iueg
ment is surplusage and does not viliate the
judgment. Affirmed.
Morena vs. the state, from Nuece'
coun v. Conviction for the theft OF horses,
The motion for 90 ti uance was properly
overruled. The evidence IL sufficient. thu
charge good and the special charges properly
refused There was no error committed
Affirmed.
Fuller We. the state, from Era'h comfy
Conviction for the treit of cstt'e. Upor
the authority OF the case of Schulz W. TIM
It lte. decided at Tyler, 1888 the substiiu
ton OF the Indictment Is held proper. Tn
charge OF the court Is correct, the evidenc
81 sufficient, and there beinr no error com
mitted the judgment is affirmed.