Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-20

warranted by the indictment, and
when under any state OF evidence Il
would be manifestly erroneous and
may have prejudiced rights of the
accused. The Indictment charged an
assault to murder a. The conviction
was for aggravated assault. Brief,
the court authorized verdict for az.
gravated assault II the evidence
showed such 10 have been made upon
either A. or one M. Held, error
under any state of facts.
Reversed and remanded. Wilson ].
Maxwell VS.. State, appeal from Pre-.
sidio county. The conviction In this
case was for an assault with intent to
murder one.Lottie Ryals, aud the pun
ishment awarded him was atwo years
term In the pepitentiary. The appeal
turns upon the sufliciency of the In
dictment, the charge of the court and
the evidence. Objections TO the in
dictment and the charge are not well
tsken--they are both eminentiy suf-
ticient. The evidence Is conflicting.
To pass upon such Is peculiarly the
province OF the jury. There Ia suf-
ticiency here, il believed, TO support
the conviction. Affirmed,
Brown ct al. va. state, from Young
county. The sign & means the same
as the written word "and,n and a
Joint instrument against several par
ties Is not bad because the ''ccmlner-
cial sign X" was used between the
NAMES Of the parties. When an in
dictment attempts to charge the ina
jury or DETACHMENT of public buildings
other than such rs are enumerated in
Art. lls of the penal code, 1t must al
lege that the building was "publiC
! building and "held for public use.n
This indictment Is defective II this re.
} spect. The statement of facts cannot
: be considered, inasmuch as, without
: an authorizing order of court, IL was
filed after adjournment. Reversed and
; remanded. White. L. j.
) Maxwell vs.. State, from presidi,
| county. The indictment IN this ease
: charged theft Of property o
: value exceeding twenty dollar,
, from Lottie Ryals. III,
, penalty imposed was "A term Of Nv,
, years in the peniientiary. The only
: question involved Is that ofdetendant,
{ intent at the time OF the taking. Thit
1 issue was fairly submitted To the Jury
= The credibility of the witnesses anl
n the weight of their testimony wa
n matter for their exclusive considera
l. ton. The verdict Is not founded upol
a clearly insufficient evidence and vii
A not therefore, he disturbed Affirmed
Y Allen VS.. State, from Mitchell coun
a ty. The affidavit OF the alleged In
r. iured party TO the affect that he III,
It not consent 10 the taking of the an
e imal. and that he knew nothing NOR
). about the oflense, supplemented b,
e agreement signed by defendant, hi
counsel and states attorney and al
tested by witt e,s.s, was admitted owe
objections of defendant: /. That de
PENDANT had the right to be confronte,
by witness against him; >. That
n had not been proved defendant eve
signed the agreement. Defendant ca
waive right save the right of trial b
l. jury In felony, and therefore tn
n first objection is untenable. The set
!, ond objection was tantamount TO
=, denial that defendant had ever signe
~ the agreement. and brought into quei
=; ton the execution of the instrument
y, IL is rule of evidence that If the ex,
: cution of the instrument is TO h
4 proved, the testimony of the subscril
~ ing witness, If there be one, Is I'll
primary evidence, until IL Is show
that the production of such evidenC
=. il out Of the party's power. The rul
6. must be applied 10 this case, for no
withstanding the instrument was II,
i such us required subscribing witness
u. one having subscribed, and the pleat
ing attacking the execution OF the II
N strument, such witness testimony
n. comes primary. When circumsta
AZ tial evidence alone is relied upol
rules covering II must be embraced !
IN charge. Reversed and remande
Saltillo vs.. State, from tvalde coui
ty. Defendant proposed TO prove by
witness "that ut the time he returne
no on the morning he went out TO hun
his two horses, and after he returne
u to the Knox ranch, he stated to IL
49, witness that he failed To find one of h
horses; that some person had taken b
other horse, and that he found Il
mare in question with his rcmainin
Y horse, and that he intended 10 tai
., said mare TO Uvalde, and see II j
y could find an owner for her, as Ii
te supposed the person who took h
y, ~ missing horse left this ma,
,e with the horse, which was not takel
~ that defendant further stated that
- he could find an owner for the mare
- said Uvalde county he would dellvs
- the mare TO the said owner; that d
~ PENDANT did not claim 10 own sai
~ mare.n Held, admissible as iendin
y to show character Of defendants pc
nc session, and the intent with which
y, took the animal, and that, therefor
w the court erred in rejecting the ey
y dence. Otherwise the evidence IL u
=, sufficient 10 support the verdict. X
~ yersed and renlanded, White. +. j.
t. Montgomery Va. State, from Kline
10 county. The indictment in this ca
of charged the appellant with the murd
40 of one James Quigley. His trial !
ut suited in his conviction OF murder
lie the frst degree, with life term in q
81 pcnitentiary affixed as punishment
IL Bill of exceptions reserved 70 the Il
a. ton OF the court IN rejecting propose
10 evidence, will not be considered VIII,
he IL fails TO advise this court OF what q
Ia defendant proposed " prove. In 9th
I'd words such bills should set forth Il
ct rel, cted evidence. The court did Il
Is. err In permitting the district attorn'
ne to require the jury to put their W
Ie- dict Ia proper form. Affirmed.
re Reaves vs.. State, from DENT
AR county. The conviction In This ca
n was for an assault with intent to mt
der one Jack McCnrley. The penal
an awai ded by the verdict was u term
'se two years In the peniteDtiary., j.
he principal objection urged goes TO 4
in charge OF the court, but 1t Ii not W,
he taken. The charge iustructs sui
lrt GENTLY upon the oiiense alleged, ana