Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-22

ao,,t.' al Tue ssme court, IL being the
county court, was objected to as eyi.
uehee IN this case, because, considered
III lts every aspect, the amount In.
rolveu IN the former suit exceeded
me jurisdiction Of the county court
tne judgment WAS nullity, aud there.
lore incompetent as evidence In this
ease. Such being fact as shown by
tne record, the court erred In ADMITTING
IN evidence, Reversed and re-.
manded. wilson,.
-, COBB VS.. Tufts, from Wise county.
l, solu 10 G. certain personal property,
Win the stipulation that actual title to
me same should and could not pass to
y. until I. had paid certain amounts
sun cue by him on the same, and c.
LOOK II. Before I. had paid the amount
que oy Nun on the property, and while
was In C.'s possession, 1t was acci-
dentally destroyed by fire. To Us suit
lor the stipulated purchase money G.
pleaded failure OF consideration, and
exception to that plea was sustained
HE'D, error; that while the possession
was IN q. the sctual title was still in Il
that the contract was executory and the
title did not. under the stipulations of
the contract, pass to c., rs 10 could not
with Us condition precedent undis.
charged. Reversed and remanded.
Wilson, ].
Cobb w. the State, from Wise
county. This was suit instituted by
the state against appellant rs liquor
dealer, To recover balance due ON uccu-
patton tax. Having previously, under
the "bell-punch" law, paid The amount
then assessed, appellant claimed and
was allowed 10y the collector credit
on his new assessment after repeal of
the bell.punch law to the extent of the
amount of his first payment unregis-
tered. Held, that such allowance was
beyond the power OF the collector, and
the states demand was legal. Affirmed.
George Ruckelson VS.. State, from
h,iis county, -four cases). The con-
| victions in these cases were based pom
Indictments which charged that on
specified dates the appellant did sell
and give intoxicating liquors TO
minors. The recoguizauce for appeal
recites that the defendant was "con-
vicseo OF selling intoxicating liquors
to minors.n A motion TO dismiss the
appeal Is filed by the assistant attor-
ney'general, for the following reasons:
That the recognizance states the
name of no of.nse with which de-
PENDANT is charged; that 1t does not
appear from the recognizance that the
defendant is accused of any ofiense
against the state. Held, that the
motion is well taken upon both
gounds, and is sustained. Appeal
dismissed.
Watson VS.. Cox, from Ellis county.
The motion to dismiss the appeal In
this case asserts, |. That the assign.
ments OF error were not filed below
simultaneously with the filing of the
appeal bond. . Because the appeal
bond Is not in double the amount OF
the probable cost in this and the lower
court as required by Act LOO. Re
vised Statutes, and is not in double
the amount of costs in court below
when filed. 8. Because the appellee
having admitted in the court below al
Indebtedness upon the amour,
claimed, sufficient to redeem the
amount involved, below the sum oI
500, this court has no appellate juris.
diction. 4. Because the transcript
shows no final Judgment in the jus
tees court, the appeal to the county
court should have been dismissed.
Sustained on the second ground and
overruled as to the Isl, sd and 4th. APP
peal dismissed.
Best VS.. State, from Fannin county
The conviction in this case was had
upon an indictment charging the
statutory ofiense of willfully disturb
ing religious worship. The recogniz.
ance for appeal defines the oflense as
Disturbing religious worship
Ueid, under the rulings in Magee We
State, CT. App, 90, and Mckay VS.
State, Id, go, that such recog
nizance charges no offense. To b.
valid IL must describe the disturbance
as willful. Motion to dismiss appea
sustained.
White vs. State, from Ellis county
Motion to dismiss appeal upon tn,
ground that the recognizance or ap
peal bond fails 10 describe an Oilens,
against the laws Of this state will pre-
vail when the transcript shows such
ground well taken. "Unlawfully
carrying away timber from land not
his own is not an offense es nomine
To constitute the oflense intended to
be described the timber must have
been carried away "knowingly and
without the consent of the owner.n
The motion to dismiss must prevail.
Appeal dismissed.
Rukelson VS.. State, from Ellis
county. The recognizance for appeal
in this case recites that the defendant
was charged with and convicted Of
selling on Sunday The informa.
ton charged the 'selling OF liquor on
Sunday" The recognizanceis utterly
insufficient to charge any ofiense
known to the laws Of this state, and
the motion 10 dismiss appeal upon that
ground must prevail. Appeal dis
mi sed.
Mrs. Parker vs.. State, from Dallas
county. When the defendant In a
misdemeanor case, having been con-
victed, appeals to this court. 1t must
appear from the record, in default OF
recognizance or bond, that the defend
Is I'm Jail. There is no such showing
in this case, and the record brings up
neither recognizance nor appeal bond.
Held, that the motion of the assistant
encouragement TO dismiss must pre-
vail. Appeal dismissed.
Frank Harris vs. State, from ELLIS
county. The conviction IN this case
was predicated upon an Information
charging the defendant with willlully
obstructlng public road. The recog-
nizance describes the ofiense as Job
structing public road" Held, an
insufficient definition Of the ofiense
denounced by the statute. The motion
to dismiss the appeal is sustained.
Mamie Perkins VS. State, from
Parker county. The defendant In this
case was convicted Of keeping dis
orderly house, and fined In the sum OF
800. The transcript to this court fails
| II x,T annual