Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-04
THE HIGH CONN
syllabus of Opinions Read,
Galveston Term, lsu
COURT mr. ~.

mai recent, upuli posstssion,i,s
lection urged to the e con 'ntlt
me e. court erred in hh oIdIsss's |.
defendant should be- ly oeaa
explanation, and that s s o,hi.
tons of his possession u a,s,! y
given i'll evidence N ii, 'pua
rule is, that, being found nd i u', !
OF stolen property ana nay H. y ps
challenged, the stalem lion" ~ ~
iendant, made at ihe tim. !, =
n evidence, either for Or 10y ~
On such questions, howsv,ss,' y
,.Nceptlons should he esuIE'
forth the text of the nm, np \ 4.
The evidence in this cs srS ~
port the conviction, and lo,,s..
1t is reversed. Reversed apS Y
ed. Hurt, j. WY
:, Laird VS.. Ffeiberg, Kin \;
u. M Galveston counly.-lts !!
suit was based upon a ye,s.s
forSl35 81. The iudumeutis.,s'
to county court) wss lor MI
motion 10 dismiss the alp,I !.
the jurisdiction Of this c'rr y
ground that the amount 4
ment being less than $40 nv
could not attach. But il sr
amount of judgment, but n. -
IN controversy which eOptg. n
ton. The county court M
missing the appeal from d, n
c"urt-tiie reclials IN Tie ,es,lI
TO support the motion. Il.rsss,
remanded. Hurt, ].
Dixon, alias Reel, W. tb,Sb,
Dallas cUunty.-WhtIe p,,1
stolen in one county aud MD
another q prcaeutss
the theft may lie mn,
in either county. The mfekn
upon the doctrine that, afsi +
dOnc what amounts 10 Nj
THEFT, anG he continues caryIs
the stolen thing each aep /
may be treated a. a new lels
the intent to steal not ls.E
doned, a new larceny, tie OH
of which is, be may be intids
In lie county Of the then, d 1
into which he las inlga
stolen property. In oidab3
conviction for theIt the nasz
the owner 10 the fakingn9k.
eilirmatively. Reversed Il
manded. White. P.J.
Mutheaa vs.. State firm "a
county.-"An indictment ii
ling should set out a ptltsss
tenses which it alleges To- y
known 10y defendant lob 50
a person named, for tbe EuEs
Trading him or another !!
whereof he obtained frl
f'auded person SINE sPcllt
value of d sort included ID l
tory inhibition.
Cum. Pfac., sections l6lla
case the moIion in arrel dlz
ought to have prevailed,
/. Because the indielIel
all,ge that the pretensa val
by the defendant to be isIs'
being false he knowingly ns
.. Because the indiclmtA's
set ouJ the pretenses al MI
3 Because it does notctaV
injured party was induced N
his property by means ., ~
L nses. Reversed aud r.
White, Z. j.
Mason VS.. the State ~.
county.-The eoir dirs ssa
u pr posed juror discloslns Y
day previous to the ~
expressed a bias IN 2
the defendant, he W.
by the court upon the ms
district attorney, sllti ! w
signed as error. Held, lhas
did not err. The rsgulsi'i
Jury, its formation, eie4 ! \, y
10 The sound discretion q u, Y
and will not be revised e e.. \.
ease of pnlpable atuse; 4 Z :.
discretion is committee WI, XXI
..ra untent of counsel. llI
ions are reserved aud lio4
bill, the charge of The Gun M,
}. revised except fof ". !
.iror. The newly.discc'talss's',
lpon which the moIlO !. = III
9 ba .ed. is not such 81 VI
.hsnge the result Of l t.',.,:
here was no error u ie'asl
rial. Affirmed. Wlls9I'as, b
HIN & Bohannon V e., las Z. 4
rort Bend county. Z
rred in oyerruilng 'ns * "
,uash the service, bsesls u
! not as the law rqulisa !,
irnrnent OF error 100 ssu vi !,
Iteration. An as'isul Fl
must specifically, po iul,a y I. \, :
omplained of Ths 'Sp a. h u i
he defendant was nela .. r. y
r + offering to briOe . . sl,a.S T.
rinlinal process as VA VA !, !.
n oiilpse arainst oarcas y
81 !, 'p penal code ] ThslI's sr
nal in one county nIcu,', ppm, (
, mi h. 20. county yiilusl,! .
ccused In the cnstpos ~ M, !
he county from which \, Y Y J
sued, Objection thl !. y H a. y
! giving judgment ~, y II.
,te because the stlls e.,
a,u Of her oilis .'l,', y
e lie bond forfeited . as' +
=. 70 forfeit NJ was 90 4 i
sc, rs "a q ,'aIi bond ooll e! Y Y
,a Aide / The aciIon q y Il
'r "'' !" term. aud dry Y N
I he i 10 1saai / eeDi'. \ Ii
,d the evidenee,p i & !; b
% general ~ r,vo,s ". oe