Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-30


OF the defendant. In other res6ecis
the charge Of the court will not be 70.
vised, in the absence OF bills OF excep.
tons showing that the appellant OK.
copied 10 the charges complained Of Vt
me Tune they were given TO the Jury.
The evidence as disclosed by the record
establishes beyond peradventure the
commission OF the oiiense, and the
Identity of the defendant as the person
who committed II. Affirmed.
Breckenridge Va. Wood, from Tsy.
Tor county. The appellee sued the ap.
pelisnt in the court below to recover
the sum 81 1886 for sheep sold The
trial resulted In Judgment in favor
Of the appellee for SlG0 The one
question involved In the trial below,
and which is sought to be reviewed In
this court, is one OF fact--the dispute
being as to the actual number OF sheen
received 10y the appellant. Upon this
| question there was conflict of eyi.
dence which was solved by
the jIry. The jury are al
ways the exclusive Judges OF
the weight Of the testimony and the
credibility of the witnesses. Their
findings OF fact upon conflicting testi.
mony will never be revised by this
case only when the verdict is against
or is unsupported 10y the evidence.
such is not the condition OF this case,
and the judgment Is affirmed.
Thomas vs.. the State, from Jack
county. The conviction in this case
was for williully obstructing the track
of n railway, "a that offense Is denied
and the punishment therefor pre-.
scribed by article 67S Of the
penal code, and the penalty
imposed in this case was
tiary. The Indictment contained ev.
cry allegation essential to charge the
ofieuse rs II is defined by the statute
supra, the charge of the court
was framed to meet every issue
presented by the evidence sdduced
and that evidence, in turn, estsb'
lished beyond the possibility OF doubt,
that the track was obstructed AS al
legged, and that II was 50 willfully OBJ
structed by the defendant in person.
The judgment is affirmed.
Hunter vs the State, from Travis
county. The charging part of the In.
dictment alleged that the appellant
did then and there unlawtully and
knowingly sell intoxicating liquors
to person under the age OF twenty
one years, to wit, TO one Mel, and
without the written consent OF the
parent or guardian OF the said Nell,
and without the written consent OF
any one standing Ia the place OF said
parent or guardian, he, the said ii
then ana there we'll knowing that the
said Mel. was then and there under
the age Of twenty'one years. etc.
Held, sufficient to charge the oftense OF
selling Intoxicating liquor TOT minor
In order to authorize and sustain d
conviction for knowingly selling intoX'
icsting liquors TO aminor, 1t devolves
upon the state to show aflirmatively
that when the inhibited act was
done, the defendant knew, in fact
that the person to whom he sold the
intoxic Ating liquor was under the axe
of twenty-one yGars-it Is not sufficient
that the state prove his minority, bu
itmust prove that the accused knew
him to be minor. AS bearing upon
the question of the defendants knOwl
edge of the homage OF the party
TO whom he sold, when the question
was contested, evidence that he haC
repeatedly refused to cell TO minors
that regulation OF his as a retail
dealer was not to sell to minors, tina
he had instructed his employees not L
sell TO minors, and that he had con
spicuously plscarded his saloon witt
warning To minors not TO enter the sa
loon, should have been admitted, with
proper instructions controlling thu
purpose of its admission Reversed
and remanded