Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-29

1917 "uiOn was leVled on C.'s cattle
which Z. replevied, with w. r. ane
L. az sureties on replevy bond. NJ. re-
covered Judgment against G. and hi,
sureties, who appealed to the county
court and Jointly as principals ex
ecuted an appeal bond, with suretie,
and conditioned as required nv law
which bond was approved by the ins,
tlce. The county court dismissed The
appeal, because the sureties upon the
replevy bond had Joined in the appesl
BOND as principals, aud because of mis-.
description of the Judgment. Bui
held, as the Judgment was against the
sureties upon the replevy bond, thew
had the right to join In the appeal
therefrom, aud II was proper that
they should join the principal in the
appeal bond. The Judgment was moi
mlsdescribed. The appeal was i'm.
properly dismissed by the county
court. Reversed and remanded.
Schraeder Va. the Sale, from Bsxar
county. The conviction In this case
was for an aggravated assault and
battery, and the punishment awarded
by the jury was a fine of one thousand
dollars and confinement In the county
jail for the period OF one year. The
appeal to this court is prosecuted upon
Two alleged errors, the insufficiency OF
tne information to charge the offanse
and the insufliciency of the evidence
to support the conviction. Neither of
these assignments are well taken. The
Information alleges all OF the elements
OF the offense, as provided by statute,
and the evidence undoubtedly estab-
fishes the guilt of the appellant of the
ofiease charged against him. The
Judgment is affirmed.
Morris vs.. Clark, from Denton
county. This is motion to sfii rm the
judgment below, as upon certificate.
The motion, however, cannot be en-.
tertained by this. court. The tran
script Is not properly before the court
at this term, because the term of the
court below at which the Judgment
wes rendered, adjourned too late to
enable the appellant to perfect his 90.
peal before the first day OF the assign
ment of this term to which the cause
was returnable. The certificate is,
therefore, dismissed.
Parsons ct al. W.. Crawford, from
Dallas county. Appellee and appel
lants in justice court for trespass to
private property, to-wit: the unlawful
driving OF plaintiffs mule from its
range, Keeping IL in pen and com.
pelling it to leap fence, In which il
broke its leg and died. Judgment was
rendered in favor of plaintiff and de.
PENDANTS appealed to the county court,
which dismissed the appeal upon the
ground that the appeal bond misd q
scribed the judgment as set out in the
Justices transcript. But held that the
bond considered in connection with the
Justices transcript, corresponds with
the judgment except that il does not
set out the amount, stating the ma.
ture and the amount Of the plaintiffs
demand, the date of the filing OF the
account, verified by affidavit, correct
ly the names of the parties to the suit,
the date ofthe judgment and in which
court it was rendered, 1t leaves no un-
certainty in Identifying the judgment
ii describes as that set out in the JUS
tees transcript. 1t was not necessary
that the bond should state the amount
of the judgment when it otherwise
described 1t with reasonable certainty.
wv. Il w. Con. r. : ,cs. sos, 407, AOS,
Si6, 1886; 90 Tex l5). Reversed and
Potter VS.. the State, from Hays
county. The conviction in this case
was for robbery. The assignment of
errors asssils the charge OF the court,
the sufficiency of the evidence TO sup
port the conviction and the correctness
Of the ruling of the court, refusing a |
new trial, which was asked to produce |
newly discovered evidence. Held, |
That in the absence OF bills of excep. |
lions the charge of the court, except |
for fundamental error, will not be re.
vlsed unless probable injury resulted to |
the defendant, which is not made !
apparent III this record. 2. That the |
evidence, as disclosed by the record, is |
conclusive and direct, establishing the |
,uilt of the defendant beyond a reason |
,ble doubt. 3. That the newly dis |
severed evidence cannot be considered |
n this court, in the absence Of the sup. |
PORTING aflidavits OF the newly dis
overed witnesses, ana sufficient
why such aflidavits were not
Affirmed.
Jaramillo VS.. the State, from Live
)ak county. The appellant in this
ase was convicted OF murder in the
Irst degree, and, in &C ,ordance with
he verdict of the jury, he was
to a life term in the state
The question on appeal
rises upon the sutficiency Of the in
Iictment to charge the oifense, and
he sutiiciency OF the evidence to sup
,ort the conviction. The indictment
alleges the time and place of the Of
ense, and charges that the appellant
lid, with his own express malice afore
bought, kill and murder the deceased,
charging also the means by which he
the crime. 1t was suf
icient, and, the evidence being con
lusive of his guilt, 1t must be held
hat neither of the errors are well a.
igned, wherefore the Judgment is
Affirmed.
Missouri Pacific Railway Va. Smoat,
rom Denton county. This was an &C
ion brought by the appellee against
he appellant to recover damages for
he killing of certain cattle, and proof
II negligence on the part of appellant
3 the one question involved. The |
transcript of the record brings up no
violence whatever showing that the
described in the petition were
- 4.