Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-03-09
faGRT OF APPEALS.
!. n Decisions Rendered at
4 q, csIveston sitting OF the
rourt Of Appeals
4 =. From the. Full and Official Re
" Il .he Rulings and opin-
ions Rendered.

Consent Oh the iemoie Is
..s.tIon that enters necessarily
\, coupoSition of the offense OF
| 4 conviction for that offense
4, .,,tained by proof that the car
E.,,reource was had with the
utn or without her consent.
prosecution for incest, the
y establishes the voluntary
-sjty Of the proeecutrix In the
,o1s set, her status rs an accom-
.Ioouies fixed, and her evidence
illegally cnrroborated to author.
Eviction upon 1t II, however,
Lance shows that she was not "a
I'm party to the sexual act, bat
4, ontrary. was the victim of
|.od, threats or undue influence,
i I, an aceDmplice, aud her testi.
Unsupported by corroborative
will support u conviction. In
Kent, the evidence in this case
slhe conviction, because. II an
lse, the prosecuirix is suf-
ytonoborated. Affirmed
pn vs. the Safe, from Jeffsr-
luiy. The appeal In this case
3nIssed at former term of this
pon the motion of the assist
3eruey-genersl, because the
ahlhd 10 show the entry in the
5M OF o valid iiual Judgment
\ the appellant. AT the subse-
krm Vt the dist let court the
attorney moved the
10 enter he final
M nunc pro tuuc
i notion was resisted by the up.
! becsu e he had not been served
faice Of said mo ion. There is
.slIon but thst the trlsl-ceurt
4 nih0riZed TO enter judg.
nunc pro tune at q term
|ient 10 the trial term, and that
flndsnt WAS entitled To prose-
lecond Ape 81 thereon, but It Is
II true that he defendant was
10 notice of the motion to en-.
sid judgment nunc pro tune,
PAUSE /. was not given in this
De Judgment il reversed, and the
tmsnded. Reversed and re-
|Ams vs.. the State, from Austin
II Is absolutely essential to
Efficiency of an informant n that
}ald sllege the uffrnse to hay @
Committed at some time anterior
\ hhGg Of the same. IL is not
Per, necessary that the affidavit
<Thlbit IL based, should do 30.
imfsvit IL sufficient rs to time,
tlegsas de tinit.ly as Can be done
Eiui the time and place of the
EssioD of the ofieDse.
the Information In this ease
the theft of a "msle hog"
Eused requested the court to
|he jury that "a male hog Is
fah has not been changed from
pa barrow by csstra'ion--thst
Epliving said hog t its .eed.n
hw", ~ d, fiRed by Webster,
b especially a male h"g, Gag.
Held. that The trial-court
b refused the instruction. But
|ence in this case does not SUP.
% conviction. Reversed and
led
pn Va the State, from Grayson
While, for the purpose Of
3 question Of c0nFent, 1t is com.
ior a defendant in a rape case,
bach the reputation of the pro :
for chastity, the rule is limited
pal reputation, aud to acts Of IL
'tercouRe with the defendant
I cannot be extended TO specific
PA other persons than the &C.
Ast the prosecutrly had previous
,alleged rape given Dir h TO a
child WAS C ,mpetent evidence
L general repura ion for chasti.
i was erroriu the first instance
'nde such evidence But mas
the sc used, a. a subsequent
I the trial elicted the said evil
Tom the same witness, the
70 far as 1t was calculated to
Zee the accused. WAS cured.
[ler the court rtjec'ed the evil
witness as t the birth of a
Echlld 10 the prostcutfix, the
1at asked the witness what had
Eefeputa'ion of he pros, cutrix
putty Def re and after the birth
IA chi d, and he ans wered that
been good so far "a he knew.
lently, when the State intro
s1idence to support the reputa-
Ne prosecutTix the defendant
upon the ground that he had
p-ached her reputation for
4 In everything this OBJ.
Ne judge, in the hearing OF
remarked that II the de-
had not so impeached his
ld, he had attempted to do 50
90, Held, that such remark
such q violation of the rule
% by article 100 Of the Code OF
noe, To the effect that in ruling
admissible y If evidence, the
'OAlI not comment upon It's
etc as to warrant q reversal
mnvietion.
ssmpt and failure on the part
@ensed TO impeach the char
states witness raises tue
slarscter, and authorize the
aaduce supporting evidences
~ record on appeal shows the
me plea Of "nut guilty." but
4~nS to the arrAignmeut, tat'
~ Presume that arrslgnmenI
seo, aud will not reverse for
rgbment, The rule is other
ven the record shows neither
Afaignmtnt.
sun the subject of penetration
4 y charged, in Ell ct, that &c
sns Jury must fiud from tht
I. mat the defendant did pen
II ,at neFsun nf a. ..s.....,,,triW