Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-08

Btntr inc burden OF diHprOvinE the pN'
plnnation. Appellant aud another
we're charged in separate indictments
: with the theft Of the pnriie animals.
Tbc appellant presented an applicn.
ton for "A continuance alleging tlpt he
ckpCctod TO prove by the absent wit
ncpBcs That he Ind no connection with
the ut0lcn animal, and that u WINS I'M.
der tho exclusive control and manage.
ment ~ the party charged in the sep.
nrnte Indictment. Held, that the pro.
posed evidence belny material. aud not
appearing probably uniruo, md the
application being otherwise sufficient
tho coutinunnce should have been
granted especially ~ 10 was the first
asked. Moreover, the evidence does
not support the verdict. Reversed aud
remandod. Hurt, Justice.
Taylor Va. State, from johnson
county. The ancient ruI' hat the me-
cuscd was not permitted TO Introduce
his explanation of his posscaaion OF
recently stolen property, unless he
WIS In possession NJ tho tfnlo the tx
PLANTATION wns made, has been 80 far
relaxed ~ 10 permit him Co give In
HIS explanation, II iunde nj the time |
his pOsncssion WINS challenged, or when
charged with The theft. Another rule |
~, Tint the explanation muet be- nRde |
when the purity IN first directly or
cirenupinntfnlly called upon 10 cx'
plain. The court property ruled out
IA hsarsny, the testimony of u Witness,
that one II. told him, In tho absence of
the defendant. TINT lir, H., hired de-
fou5snt 10 drive the onttle. Where
recent possession OF stolen property
without explanation IL relied upon 10
convict, the defendant IN ntill entitled
10 show, II can. that his connection
with the stolen property WA Innocent,
OF TO raise In his fnvor reasonable
DOUBT The verdict Ii not supported
by the evidence. Reversed aud re@
mauded. Hurt, Justice
Hrhindler w. State, from Fay site
county, ~. 10 The Indictment IN His
case, flied NOvembrr. 1893, the defond-
~ nv pleaded the pendeucy In Gonzales
county ~ mn indictment for the same ,
theft. The ataie's attorney demurfed
10 the plen, mud the demurrer VIVA hue'
thineJ Held, That In tbia nation The
court did not err, that The code fceos' !
nizs,a but two apocial plens to mn
indictment, viz foriper hcguitthl {
and former oonyictiuu IIiit when
constitutional rights ARE Involved, the ,
can raise issues upon them II
by special plnn. The defendant VIVA Ia
poaseasiou Of the stolen animal with ,
o,.t n bin Of enlo. Upon such y oi,se, I
rnsiIpp upou rlrcuuiBtaitinl evidrilo", 4,
Tho co,lrt charged ~ follnws; Upon u
the trial of any pets0n charged wiz, y
tile theft of any cattle, the pUAaesAloD !
of such st0lsD nnlnmJ without "a wit
ton bill Of sale or transfer, containing q
a npeclfir description OI Hunh animal,
shall bu pflma faoie evidence nsaiiis, q
him That such pOapessl0n wha Illegal"
Held error, under the ruling IN Gar
pin'a raae. ~ court ~ appeals. iljb I
A rtiele 15gD of the I4nnl code dorA Il
moi deelhrr that possession ~ hi AMI i
nal without a bill ~ snlu fraudulent, Il
hat Illegal. aud does not authorize tie v
Inference that the party ~ nncii poe v
session IL n ibiei. Hen iuiilief, ihnt
A conviction for theft, based merely
mon posaeHaiDu without bill of sale,
,annot stand Reversed atd fsiiihnd-
ed Hurt j.
Alonso W. The State, from Webb u
,,pnty HE appellant, nh unmarried .
male, aud ono w. ~, u married female,
were jOin ~ indicted Tor MiIltefyi v
Ihay severed, and Il, II q
WA first placed upo1, trial =
md was acquitted Whom q
no nppalant wna aflnigoai for trial,
ho en,ared special plaaGf ormef nc. Z
n,,itt hnsed upon the proposition J
,bat. IA the ollrlAe charged against
VIA Que which uolll only be nninn,it-
I'D by two persons, The. uogultlsl oi "
II. operated - an naqtIlllhi 81 himself,
The motion Of the district attorney 70