Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-01-09
COURT OF APPEALS.
psis of Recent Decisions Rem
|ered at tho Tyler Sitting Of
the Court Of Appeals
% From the Full and Official Re.
port Of the Rulings and 0piu-
ions Rendered,

piled for the Gazette.
,zley va the State, from McLennan
ty.--2 It Is a rule Of evidence APP
bile 10 the crime Of rape, that u
lotion can be had upon the uu-
sbornted testimony Of the injured
&c, even though she he child un-
he age of ten years, but It is, ia
aspect, CRIME requiring of the
D special scrutiny and a careful
hing OF the evidence, with all re-
3 and near circumstances. In all
cascs, extraordinary effort should
ade 10 secure clrcumstsn tial evil
o tending to confirm the main
eBa
while the trial court cannot, 10 a
inal cause, express any opinion as
Q weight Of the evidence, nor sum
ne testimony on a trial before n
as the jury are the exclusive
IS OF the facts, yet, on a motion
neT trial, 10 IL the duty OF the
70 set the verdict aside, when IL
pntrary TO the law and the evil
In arriving at the conclusion,
her or not conviction il aus
ID by the evidence, IL must be
In mind that the defendant IL
imed Innocent OF crime until his
is established, and that he Is en-
to acquittal II, from the evidence,
DO reasonable doubt Of his guilt.
Sec. j, Whar. Or. Law, section
pr q rule properly applicable TO a
eWhereln the one witness Is not
lborated, although corroboratlng
noDy was accessible. Reversed
femanded.
siyson W. the State, from Ellis
-,y.-l. Rape may be committed IN
rOr all of three modes; /. O., force,
Lats or fraud, and an indictment
aiing all three modes In a single
il not applications.
u While in prosecutions for rape
,neral character of the injured fe-
for chastity may be proved as
% 10 weaken the evidence OF the
tuition as to want Of consent, par
ttar instances OF unchastity, except
nN.he defendant, cannot be proved
.eoluDtary, indiscriminate pro5ti-
~ cannot be proved in mitigation
-lishment.
Al.3ee the second heGd-nOte In PEI
AZ, s case, 40 Texas, 1876, for rule
q aleDce applicable 10 a rape case
the quilt of the defendant de-
0Pll solely upon the testimony oil
Falured female.
Two state's witnesses We're per.
~ to testify that five days after
q leged rape, they were shown by
e')seeutriX the place Of the alleged
nd that the condition Of the
gl Indicated that IL had been pro.
by person or persons. Held,
-1saible, even to corroburate the
ltrlx, and because too remote
-.-- certnin to have any legitimate
SKIN on the issue. The verdict is
81 exported by the evideLce. Re.
saIa and remanded,
2 lington vs.. the State, from
= comfy IL. Indictment fol
y with intent to commit theft
Objectionable because il fails "a
the property which 1t alleged
sWIendant intended TO steal.
sAs1e Htatements Of the wife Of q
AMI on trial for a Grim nal of
alals made 10 n witness, unless SC
ssssf6.in the presence Of and by the
orhscence OF the defendant, 4.
tgsa hearsay evidence, and az such
5Id arily inadmissible on behalf o.
nIy fseculion.
Of bile II Is true that, for tire pur
'bslesf affecting her credibility, the
cas- Z defendant on trial IL, like
asg1er witness, subject to eros, Eek,
W. ion, Huch Cross examination
ma 90 e0niined to the matters about
aya she testified on her examlna
ss s chief
ssbs ,ere evidence, competent only
inalFitlng the credibility OF a wit.
ds1.s,s been admitted for that pur.
wosr Is the Imperative duty Of the
0surt 70 instruct the jury that
" consider IL for that purpose
les Reversed and remanded.
e. ps Va. the State, from L.
81. Indictment alleged that
,ss & me was committed in Parker
= II that the grass fired was the
De ~ SIS pasture, inside Of his In
, ...s that the defendant WAS moi
WY OK Of eaid Enclosure, and thai
.usi ndant set fire to the grass un.
s .n1s and wilfully, and with intent
saisi oy it. Held, sufficient t.
n' he ofiense OF destroying the
g w another by FIRE.
= ~ en one person owns the pro-
I'D another has the pcssese ion
~-r control of the same, OWNER
10y be proved to be In either
s,sysalen y is owned In common
Sghay by two or more persons
Up may be alleged in all o,
,d3ks them.
vii .of Of Possession merely Ia, In
ollcs cases, suRieient proof OF tho
y = 81 ownership. and thli
aiiil be made parol. If the de
slsims title, that fact IL De
eai- IN his knowledge, and Ia,
AZ. Aeaif establishing II as against J
.es,iss'y title is upon him.
evidence showed conclusively
OF two state witnesses was AZ
see, and tended strongly e
h9lEkt the other was, inasmuch a.,
ehSInot present At the commission
Wv tense, he furnished the de
n Afneans Of perpetrating il. Tn,
. Nsfgeo in effect, that before
arould make the latter witness
.plice, 20 as 10 require corrobo
s3I hit tstimoDy, they must b,
III h that lie participated IN
aftuti commission q
ME apse- Held error tina