The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-22
AFFAIRS AT AUSTIN.
KAHN REFUSED A REHEARING.
Drops into the Department Euckrt-Wa-h
Jones Hand Seen Through the
Glass Darkiy-A Fort Worth
Paper to Play the Piper.

AUSTIN. June a. Special. The fol-
lowing scholastic reports were filed to-
day: -
City of Navasota, so; increase, IN.
Ennis-Supplemental report, q.
Waxahachic -39l, mot organized last
year,
Waller County 2,jOs; increase, iSj.
Newton ,l6g; increase, 3i2.
Matagorda 800; increase, -.
Charters filed: Hillsboro Collegiate
Institute, capital stock, 10000; st Joseph
Catholic Benevolent association. San
Antonio.
The Consul General of Matamoras has
written the Governor saving there is
no danger of yellow fever, and request
ing that quarantine against the city be
raised. The Governor replied that no
could take no risk, and would maintain
quarantine until all danger is over.
Wash Jones is in the city attending
Court of Appeals. He has not publicly
announced the fact, but IL is understood
he will be an Independent candidate for
Governor, with the Fort Worth Gazette
his leading newspaper support.
The Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded: Annie Wilson VS.. the State,
from Dallas; Cartwright vs. the state,
from. Wise Missouri Pacific Railroad
company VS.. Hewitt, from Dallas; Roddy
vs. the State, from Bcxar; Mcdowell VS..
Nicholson, from Jack; Mcdonnell ct al.
vs.. Collier, from Jack; Looney vs.. Till
man, from Mitchell: Henson vs. Martin
ct al, from Mitchell Galveston, Harris
burg Il San Antonio Railroad company
VS.. Gildcd, from Kinney.
Motion for rehearing ovcrruled: kain
VS.. the State, from Dallas, 1.-TWO cases);
Schwartz VS.. Liebcrman, from Tarrant
Sutton w. the State, from Grayson;
In fnfA
burn Wagon company vs.. Hammer, from
Travis. Sabine VS.. Goodman, from
Mitchell; Glenn w. the State, from
Erath; McGinnis w. the State, from
Erath; Deatherage vs.. the State from
Runncls; Willing W.. the State, from
Falls; Wilson vs.. the state, from John
son.
Reversed and dismissed: Howell vs..
the state, from Atascosa; Bowman vs..
the State, from Coleman.
Dismissed: Bella vs.. the State: Will
son, Phillips ct al. vs.. Newland, from FL
Paso, Texas Express company ~. Bcni-
dick, from Nolan.
W. McCollum, from Dallas Taylor vs..
the State, from Wilbargcr, 1.-TWO cases);
eXparte Waller Mills, from Bastrop;
cXparte Robert Mills, from Bastrop;
Williams vs.. Blum, from Milan; Gallo
way vs.. the State, from Anderson.
oIl DTltlN lbT llt Nlult. DufltNl tt III.
vs.. the State, from Hood; McDaniels vs..
the State, from Brazoria; Roach vs.. tho
State, from Walker.
The Court of Appeals delivered three
very important opinions to-day: First
That of Roddy vs.. the State, from
Bexar, in which the court held that
when the accused has complied with
Article $50, e. &. p, and made his appli-
cation for attachments for his absent
witnesses in the form and manner re-
quired therein, his right to such attach
mcnts was such II legal right, and that u
refusal thereof by the court was a re-
versible error. Number two was that
of Sutton vs.. the State, from
held that where Sutton and
another entered into an agreement, per-
suant To which they stole a mule in tho
Indian Territory, and sutton gave the
other party money with which to como
into this State to sell the mule, and said
party brought the mule into Grayson
county and traded him for a horse, ,ai-
terward selling the horse and dividin3(
the money with Sutton; that Suito
was amenable to the laws of this 81
for the theft.
Third case was that of Powell vs.
State; from Ataseosa. The case We
on plea of former jeopardy.
n,,, the facts "a are, ARE these: s"r fSss' f,Ssi
ter retiring, the jury -
court and reported that they
agree. Upon being asked
stood, they replied eight
court asked them if the
as to a matter of law OF
responded 'both." Tha
tired, but came i'm agar
of time and with the
court then asked the
he was willing that