The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-02-08

proper dtlligoncu inlcui nhSc N.bSONtI'u -
X 'versed and rsmaudnl,
Broyn 81. M. W.. Brnyn from Navarro
county. Opinion by Watts J, Adopted
sur tor partition brought by appellee, 'h'
sutviviug widow Of ID a, Brown, dectgted
against tho heirs OF the ssii Il, coasel BY IN
former vile who clamtd The Land hHih'
rtpsrate propetiy Ui tntir decessed motht
under adcei from her Upon the man
lqutGdOn Ia the case, thatnt INT delivery -
tue deed, the cour charged as follows: 1T,
constitute delivery 10 as 90 pass tue q
property by deed IL is necessary that TN
QTAntur ehdull either rake IN s0iua de-
livery TO the grantee. or place the deco
within tho control OF the grantee with tn'
intention at ihe time of sbGn
doning all further control OF I'M
deed, aud OF resting then tn
d 10 to the property 10 the grantee" AZ
~ contrary proposition OF ne law applicable
10 She case, Tho RppelaHts ASKED The follow
ing charge: In determining whether 81
not me died OF 1895 was delivered by ID. 81
Brown tn mis- wife, you are Instructed tba'
IL Ia not necessary that thoro should have
been IA actual doliver-ihat u, that the
def q should have bean passsd iron, tht
haads OF ID. M. Brown 10 tho hands OF his
WIN, bat anything thst shows 10 your
satisfaction mat ID. ~. Brown intended tbs
property ueaSioned In the decd TO pasS u
hs sain wife ~ the iimo the sasne Ga'
made will ss sufficient, notwithstanding
ssid Brown sitarwsrd may have aonndooed
such Intention, etc" Held; Tho PROPOSE
| tior, ~ contained in the requeated chAfae
was the correct one. Reversed aad re-
manded.
Zmpisman Va. Gresham ct a., fron,
| Crimes county. O1'nion Dy Stayton J
| Wncre lien IL given 10y statute, seizure Of
the properly hy distress warrant onlS
serves o SECURE tue property that the lien
ou II may be preserved. The genera rule Il
that all personA VINO C.Aini AL Interest IN
property on which II lien IL sought TO bi
inreclp2ed should bs made parties. The
Dislrict court having jurisdiction oiths fuo
iect matter OF The sun, mad power 90 al A.
the righLaof tho several parties cliliuini
an interest in tho property ~ which th'
zen exsled, although the Interest NEE
! II the properly sought to be- snoIoc'eu "
he len may not ~ 70 some Of tho partiv
been such ~, 81 ITSELF, 10 give the ccdrt 1u
rsdiction. Affirmed.
Smithetni Va. WnPhts, from Orang
county. Opinion BY Whine, @. ]. WIN
10 making bond payable 10 the crunv
/ ia "a, 10 woald have been moro technical Il
nave added IN Che body tlersof his oihCla
character, yot H. bciu,, ioade p3ysoie 10 th'
county Judge and approved by shat psrso'
ip his elac.l capacity, IL was sntiole,t
, Whsro suit ia brought by one persOn 10
the use Of nEot1er, the real plsintin Ia IN
Beneficiary, enc nc may mainlsin the sui
though tee npparenS plaistiH wi1hdrawa
In this casa Winxete brossht suit ne souo'
~ Judge isr use Ut the c0unsy. Whaieve
Indignant la might recover would inuTo
The couuty There vss 10 necessity thn
the partition sbou d STOW ihst the county
had authorized tho suit. Affirmed.
ELLA W.. II 30, from San JseintO county
Opinion by slayton, There IL nothing t.
| show that the cunira0l or ssio OF the laaf
was execul.ry. Hebca the reNody uPsf
deferred psypients was upon the puroh as
note 70 forecosa tho vendors lies. INT
| plaiDtiH would have no power 10 rsseist
Tho contIscJ o. sale. The citation Is suni
Giant. =. plsirtiff in error does NOT com
pain OF the Judgment in To far es IL rs'
sc,ude tho sale OF the land, and only COO
81 sino OF the rendition OF the Judgment fo
rentt. TIE Judgment WI % auirIpe
defendant Ia errors cost II ~i.hip ten day
lao shall remit 50 much OF the Judgment al
ia for the rents or dana re tor me use OF tn
rame. Otherwise judgment wiz % re
yerssd aud remsud.u.
COURT OF ArPRALs.
William. vs.. tue state, from Washington
county. Opinion by Hurt, J. oonviot,oI
oil l.,uSJer o! tue first degree for vhirb
lie ,sptencs In the peniteDtiary was Ss
r.ssod. Deceased vas appellants husoand
and the theory OF the state was that Judg
Williams, her step.son, fired TIE fA;al aho
mt the instlg cation OF the appellant. Judg'
Williams turning stAie's svioehcs, was pm
aeon tina stand apd tesliiied for tho stetp
giving the d. tails OF the killing, and stn,iDS
th.t he lired the fatal shot at the instgn
ton of the appellant. Hela, the state 10
| ,lv,uv s,Isiy upon tho testimony OF the 80
| complice, 1t was necessary tbst such test
mopy be pupportad by c1rrooorat,ve testt
mony, aud mono such being introduced TIL
conviction cannot stand. Reversed and 70
manded.
county, Opinion by Hurt, J. Conviction
for un,swfuliy carry ing pistol, Tho fol-
Lowing are substantially the fscts uPor
which the CONVICTION was bad: While Roinf
70 church with o party OF friends, appellant
foupd tho pistol, which he placed in HI,
pocket He went on 10 church, but dio
not 20 In, put after tho serv oea ne went it
the house OF T., whore, while sitting in ,
Ionair. the pistol fell from his pocket. I
then went into AN Adjoining room
aud when he returned ibe pistol had as
appeared. The pistol belonged to t. Held
tn, facts of this case do not make v ore iol
unlawuiy carrying pistol. hevers,d
aDd renAnded.
Uarr,s vs., the state, from Brown county
Donation by Huft, ]. Where The sta re
lies upon the posse sion OF recently slsier
propertv MS tho main Crlminative act, vha
ever explanation the accused gave ct bn
| poseessiun at the time, ae edmissable tC
meet the prims facie case made by The fact
of bis being In possession, and impossi
upon the state the burden OF proof TO dis
provs the separately indicted for thu theft
of the ssme animal, aud appellant presents
MS application for a continuance, and
| slleg-s thst he expects u
prove by the absent witness that
he haa no connection whatever
with the alleged stolen animal, and that II
was under tine exclusive control oil The
other party charged With It's theft. and II
does not sppear I. be probably untrue, Ror
does the application tail TO show prcpsr
diligeuce. Held, the evidence being ma
trial and it being the fifEt application ioi
lcou,inuancs, IL should have been granted
The evidence does not support the vefdict
Reversed and remanded.
county. Opinion BY Hurt..j. The ancient
,nis int N nccused was not permitted 10
,nrrocuce his explanation Of his possession
4 recently stolen property, unless he vst
~ possession OF the properly at the time
the exclamation was made, has beer so fsi
r.lsxed A. TO permit Inn 20 give In evidence
| ,is expisnation. II made at the time hi:
rnssesri,n was disputed, or when he wa
charged with the theft. Auoiher rule "
| nat the exclamation must be made When
he party 10 FIRST directly, or circnm
| stantisijy, called upon to syplsin. Tts
c,urt properly excluded ~ besrssy ~.
whence offered 10 the ehfct that one +
aid Z, vitnsss, 10 the sbsenc OF defendant
| nat he bad hired defendant TO drive tbs
cattle. where recent possession Of stolen
property, without explanation 10 relies