Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-04
sCOURT OF APPEALS.
ynopsis of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting of the
Court Of Appeals.
made up From the Full aud Official Re-
: port of the Rulings and 0pin-
: ions Rendered.
Compiled for the Gazette.

n nth Case ClhIBeu Jut hppelldut WIN
carvings pistol. His trial
hesuIted ia his conviction, and fine
u ! twenty dollars was assessed against
adlim as the penalty. The assignment
II errors calls in question the sur
!. .,iciency OF the indictment, but pre-
g,ents no issue upon that question that
Y las not been heretofore settled in a
Number of cases. The evidence showed
,u,hat he carried the pistol in public
--Jlace, and that he came under none of
- he exceptions to the statute inbtbit-
hg the carrying of pistols The judg-
Nnent 5 affirmed.
v HARRISON vs the State, from Jones
.ounty No. 34S9) The conviction in
h. his case was for unlawfully exhibit
Eng gaming table in public place
or the purpose OF gaming. The
y ranscript fails to show that the appel
liant gave notice in open court of his
\ appeal to this court. 1t is defective
N'therwise in bringing up no recogniz.
WHnce, and in default thereof in show
sNng that the appellant is in Jail. In
7ihis State of the record this court is
ztTithout jurisdiction, and must sustain
>Mhe mates motion to dismiss the APP
Veal. Appeal dismissed.
e Railway vs. Dyer, from Palo Pinto
5 sounty. Pending the appelle Is mo-
ion to dismiss the appeal in this case
because the transcript filed in this
Vviourt failed to show that, upon the
notion for new trial being overruled,
:, he appellant, in open court gave no.
Nice ofappeal, the appellant files his
motion 10 withdraw his transcript.
Nrhst motion is sustained subject 10
/, Lis Payment of the costs accrued
Ia it>, In
accordingly.
Pruyear VS.. the State, from Lee
!, ornty. A term OF two years in the
q )enitentiary was assessed against the
appellant In this case upon his convic-
ion OF an assault with intent to muir
Rfer. The question involved is as to
he efficiency of the evidence. The
iAlrue test of such question is: Had the
Injured party die1 from the effects Of
he Injuries inflicted by the accused,
would the latter be guilty, under the
nh acts of the case, OF murder? The
try IN this case solved that question
al the affirmative, and there il ample
evidence in the record to support their
oiution. The charge of the court
\ Iesp0nded correctly and directly to
very phase of the case developed on
he trial. Affirmed.
lev Bchoolcraft vs. the State, from Palo
Pinto county. This was INSIDE
ueanor conviction for malicious mis-
hicf, the appellant being fined in the
Mum of $50. Fundamental errors in
- ne charge, or such rs we've calculated
I b prejudice the rights of the accused,
ldnly, will be revised by this court, un-
ASsss other errors complained OF were
roperly excepted to when given. In
shAo other than a criminal we light can
scnhe evidel ce adduced up N this trial
sdls Viewed, and the motion for new
Irial was absolutely without merit.
thnl fiirmed
mo- PheIan & Co. VS.. Wiley & Botson,
4 tom Dallas county. On motion for
snpshearing The appeal in this case
Q Was disposed OF at previous day Of
s ne present term, and the conclusions
tbef this court upon the errors assigned
maeported and published In these col
admns. TIE motion for rehearing,
led witbia the time prescribed by
Mlw, seeks merely tn secure q review of
ie questions originally disposed Of
'Ul onfident of the correctness OF the de-
ouision rendered, upon the authorities
Lifted, the original opinion is readopt-
I'd and the rehearing is refused. So
ln rdered
Cd Allen vs., Sinker, Davis q Co, from
..-9allas county. The appellant, upon
HFnr defeat in the court below, filed his
action for new trial, aud when that
,fas overruled gave notice of appeal to
es'his court, filing his appeal bond. The
dinRse was assigned its proper place on
!. he docket of this court, but when
ute cached upon regular call, the appel
Int falling to respond by either coun-
II or brief, left This court with no op.
o. on but to dismiss the case for want of
sroHecution. Appeal dismis led for
liant OF prosecution.
l.s Barnett VS.. Alternately. from
n1unty. In this case the appellee ii les
- motion TO strike the statement of
s@cts Rom the record, because the same
assas not filed within the time pre-
by law, and to suppress the
sSyriefs because the same do not conform
gsIa the rules of this court. The state
q aent Of facts, however, appear to have
esSbSeen filed and certified within the
rs'1atutory time, and the briefs filed,
fnhongh not models in every respect,
ERE Ia substantial compliance with the
Jules. Motion overruled.
~ G4nerrez VS.. the State, from Bexar
Il acunty. A term of seven ears in the
~
rsppeiiant in this case upon his con-
q ictiop under an indictn ent which
y Shhrged him with horse heft. He
4 $DpuRns the charge OF the court and
4 sac sufficiency OF the evidence to sup
1ssort the verdict rendered against him.
skl the exercise Of its proper functions
jury extended credit to such of the
rgSitnesses as appeared to them most
OBSERVING Of credibility and thew
,u1Isive sufficient credence to their testi.
eo.ony to authorize them in presenting
81 verdict of conviction. This court
Ill not intrude upon their fu.e;ions
n Hess their verdict be palpably
'lainst the evidence, as 1t is not in
Ills Instance The charge responded
VNtinently and frlly to every cues.
.s.)n rails sd. Affirmed.
drrWiilis Va. the SAFE, from Travis
on ssuuty. Under an indictment which
y s'SSarged him as principal in murder,
Sirse appellant was convicted in the
/. second degree of that offense, and
Q ,Issrnl Of seven years in the peniten-
ire psry was assessed against him. A
nths refnl inspection OF the testimony as
i,Sslf fori h in the transcript demonstrates
Z, sc appellants personal aud GRIM