The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-08
HIGHER COURTS.
|fhe Law VI the Land as Laid Down for
Litiganis
In Cases Appealed 10 tho Coaris OF
Last Resort.
Summary Of tho Decisions Recorded.
COURT or ArrEALs,


James vs.. the State, from Live Oak coun
~. Conviction OF the THEFT OF COW. tn,
property Of Mrs. Terry. from the possession
OF Sullivan. Sullivan and Skdmors wsr,
20 control all tho cattle belonging to Mrs
Terry aud ray for such ~ they got aud
branded, Under this contract the possos-
sion OF the animal was properly sverrsd Ia
be Ia Sullivan. The charge wat correct and
the instructions aked were properly re
fused, having been given In the general
charge. No objection being taken TO the
admission OF parol evidence Of the brands,
the error, II sucs, cannot now bs noticed.
The evidences II sufficient. Aiiirmed.
East Lins Railway W., Sctoggin, from
\ doptins county. Suit brought TO recover
damages Tor lumber aud shingles destroye ed
by iire on the right OF way, the same being
CAUSED from com bustible mateiial lett on
ell of ], the court refused TO qussh the oiia-
tion, because the copy served on defendant
was not thenticatsd by the signature OF
The clerk. The original and return ars
good and no affidavit accompanies the pre-
Tended copy set out by defendant. Affidavii
Should accompany the motion in order 10
eontroverl the sheriH's return. Affirmed.
Wha,ley W. the State, from Nsfarro
county. On re.hsarihg. The indistment In
the case was returned into court before the
speeds Judge, but the record does not show
O. the proceedings had In elscting
~ ltcial Judge. No exceptions we're
Pthe time snd the question Ia RAISED
drst time on this appeal; Held: II
x.auy objection at all, IL comes too
Nh. trisl MAS had bsfore tue regular
i = There Is no oiror. Atiirised.
& ny W. tho State, from Hopkins coun-
Eviction Of the theft OF three chickeus
violence ia positive and conclusyc.
dani's abb Ia H. no wise sustained
jp0rtsd In any respect. The couri did
PERI ia rTqulring the jury TO correct
first verdict aud return sao,her, ~
kiirst was informal Rrd not responsive
,chsrgS. Affirmed.
IN vs.. the State. from Hopkins ooun-
onyistion OF al aggravated assault and
tery on Caroline Pierce. TnerU is no
einent of facts In the record aud this
Il cannot therefore phs, upon the tuiii.
oy OF the evidence, as careful inspec.
of tho record fails TO disclose any error
tha judgment Is affirmed.
tubbaId W. Todd, from Kaufman ,coun.
Suit Tor damages for wrong ully suing
{ and causing to b. levied. q 4 stress war
Mt on corn vegetables. etc, Judgment tor
90, remititur of 500 for attorneys fees
@. 1.-Tss petition being sufficient tbs
captions 10 10 were properly oyerru,d.
III there was error In sustaining sxcep.
MS to defendant 4 answer, II was an i'm
lateral error. Sta. charse Of the court
~ the msin correci. There was no
or ia SloTing the rrmittifur to bs
tered. s.-rAo evidence shows = wrong
Il suing out OF the process without proba
cause, 6.-Fhe Judgment is "a proper
40, and IL Ia Affirmed.
Fiipper w. the Missouri Glass com.
any, IRON BoRie county Appsilee
noves to dismiss this appeal for want of n
pihoisnt sppeal bond in thu 70 IL not
bubble tho amount OF tho judgment aud
ISIS In 10. court below, and II appearing
hat the said amount Of tho jnds meht amt
ssis is 1894 90 and that the bond IL for but
go, the motion /, granted aud Tho appeal
ismissed.
wilkins w. the State, tom Agutin
1unty Morton 10 dismiss the sppsal for
sant Of jurisdiction bscauss tAtrs was no
final judgment ia the conrt bsiow, aud
upon inspection II appearing that there
vas no sentsDce IN the court below, the
anne is granted AVID the appeal dismissed
Brszier VS.. the State, from. Pamela coupty.
onviciion for DRUNKENNESS 10 public
lace. Tho indictment Is good without the
e OF the word did ~ TO ths appellants
runkenness Rae opinion OF a witness
thereto can be given in tuch cssea the
sans as in a Gaze OF inssnity. Thsre Is no
error, and Toe judgment ia affirmed.
|county. Conviction Of an assault with in
Itent 10 murder one Annie May. The
1 ,eapop used wss rnxor. The Indictment
good 4 d sufficient and tho evidence
Imply supports too verdict. The charge
as subject to correction, but not being
Objected 10 a. tho time nor made ground
of the motion for new trial, II comes toe
late TO be Doticed now. Affirmed.
Morris vs.. ths State, from EcLonnan
unity. Convict on Tor the theft Of 4 horse.
hs indictment, evidence and charge
the codrt are in oil mate
respects good and sufficient
| amply support tao. judgment.
application for u continuance falling v
due diligence, was preperly refused.
attaohmen t for tina witness Brown, who
/ in Fort Worth, was not Issued until
10Th. and the trial was to be had on the
!. Thsrs is no error In the judgment
1t is affirmed.
ayes vs.. the State, from Harris county.
ficiion for assault to murder y. r.
;; penalty three years in tbs peuitsn.
Tue record contain8 no statement OF
bills or exceptions, nor assignment OF
aud the Indictment and charge OF
sourG being in all respects good and
Silent, the Judgment is affirmed
90 We. the State from Lsvecc- county,
rtion for tho theft of a nisrc. The
nee is ample o support tho yordc,.
fefance relied on insanity but the evl-
4 adduced fails 10 chow that degree OF
fty necessary to excuse crime. The
&c upos the whole Is correct; its rpl'
upon the . mission OF evidence WAS
rect, and the indictment IL good ana SUI
snt. A fiirmed.
aims v. the State, from Harris county.
eviction for setting fire 10 the Jail on the
lnty poor farm and thereby escaping.
guilt is conclusively proven. The in
TIM nt is good and the ceuris charge fair
y correct There 10 no error and the
,xment IL affirmed.
AWAIT W. the state, from TArrsnt ooun.
Uonviction for the ihsft Of Roods and
pupish msnt sMxed ct two y, ars in the
I,itettiary The evidence clearly sstso
Xeothe thsit Of toilst rot, valiss, rssoT.
u. Belonging to various par,iss, rs well
heir vafns to bs more than so. The
rye Of The court and Indictment are
land sufficient There 10 no erraS aud
Judgment 10 Affirmed.
odrews W the state, from Bear com.
Conviction Tor the theft Of = watch and
in, and the punishment affixed AZ I'VE
n imprisonment In the penitsntiary
Indictment Is good and sufiici Mt, the
spcs Is positive % to the then aud the
uficiiion ofths defendant and the con-
an which led to the discovery of the
proper,y was properly admitted In
,rd vs the state, frow Kaufman
lty. Conviction for the theft OF horse,
1 sft,r beihg cautioned by the officer
a those having him In charge, he sdmit-
d the thief There was an rvlde nee that
,pndors was an sccompiics Ia the thsft,
nd the court did not err ia refusing ,ps-
Al inslruc ions on that point The cnstgs
the ccurt clesrly ami oorractly presented
70 Law OF the case a. applicable 10 ihe iscts
firmed.
sexton W.. Hindman, from Rutk county
his Gauss Was tried 10 'nr Jlspces
nrt and Judgment rendered against sp.
u u, and niH suretiss HIS sureiiss az
cd 10 Tue county court. where judgment