Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-01-10
0RT OF APPEALS.
s of Recent Decisions Rem
d al the Tyler Sitting Of
tho Court Of Appeals
, From the Full and Official Re-
>t Of the Rulings aud 0pin-
ions Rendered,

.,us 10 evidence admitted over
n must disclose tho ground Of
,n.
10 rule that when evidence in
bic per Sc has been admitted
lection, 1t will be presumed to
>reludiced the accused, whether
( 10 did i'm fact, and is therefore
for reversal, is q sound one
sarrled to it's legitimate extent,
annot be extended so rs TO In
he admission Of evidence that
aDly harmless. When the rule
kcd, the bill Of exceptions shall
herein the evidence complained
lid tend to prejudice the ac-
.dgments, even in criminal
Elll not be disturbed because of
eriai errors.
a murder trial, the defense
ed 70 prove by one l.. that, on
prior to the homicide, one T.
| 4 tho defendant that the de-
had threatened his life, and
q the day Of the homicide and
hereto, the said T. told the wit
| hat the deceased was hunting
e defendant and threatening his
The proposed evidence was ex-
as heaIs ". Held, error, inas-
rs the object OF the proposed
ice was to prove the communica-
lade by T. To the defendant, and
prove its truth or falsity.
When q defendant accused Of
| n seeks to justify on the ground
eats against his own life, he Is
tied under our code to introduce
ace ofsuch threats whether COM
Gated or not, but no threats will
unless 1t be shown that, st the
II the homicide, the person killed,
ne act then done, manifested an
. ion to execute the threats 40
Evidence that when the de-
| Mt fired the fatal shot the de-
by bis acts, mRnifeeted an To-
a Of Drawing a weapon to use up
defendant, WAS enormously Elk
charge of the court must be con
| q as a whole, and If good when
lsidered, objections TO detached
nB Of il will not be entertained,
On aelf.defense, the court below
ed as follows: mo man csu bring
dangerous conf ict, slay his antSg
and then justify on the ground
-deftnse." Held, error, inAsmuct
states the rule too broadly, ahd
calculated to mislead the jury
sed and remaEded.
ppard.vs the State, from Fall,
UT is the settled rule OF law
Is state that IL is sufficient 10 al
hat the murder, or other Ike Of
was committed in some way OF
' Ter and by some means, inGtru
and weapons TO the grand juror
own. Indictment for iufaBticid,
argos in this case, ana Ia suti
but the evidence Is insufficient
first place, 10 show conclusivell
be child WAS born alive and hBI
II Independent existence; and, il
scond place, iii was so born aut
an Independent existence, tina
sother, the defendant com pas,e,
urder. Reversed snd remAnded
glor VS.. the State, from Harri
| ~. ~ / II is the exclusive pre-
OF the jury trying the case I
upon the weight of the evidences
he cfedlbility OF the witnesses.
| IL would be error in a trial cOuT
arge upon u Hypothetical state q
not presented by the evidenct
facte In a trial tor assault with In
to murder, raising in no degre
Issue Of Granddaughter or sggrH
assault, the court properly n
ed from charging tho Law Of tho
ses.
The conviction In this case tor a
with intent to murder Is ampl
orted by the evidence. Affirmed
| yne vs.. the State, from Smit
ty.-The offense denounced by a
6s5 of the penal code is not III
az that denounced by article g.
e said code, bat is IA separate an
net odense 10 which is attached
rent penalty.
The prosecution in this case, Il
Dg a COW, was brought under art
so Of the penal code. The ev
e shows cOnclusively that the al
mt shot the COW, and, though ii
nal was found dead outside his Il
ire, Il tends 10 show that she Wa
by the appellant ineide Of b
around which he dI
have legal fence. Und,
proof the defendant requested u
wing special charge: 4"
believe from the ey
&c that the COW charge
avo been killed was killed in u
Of the defendant, you cannot iin
guilty under this prosecution
' d, that the evidence tending to 4
ieh an oifense different from tn
rged Ia the information, the
ant was entitled 10 the char,
a. Anu It's REFUSAL was error. II
ed and remAnded.
rice vs.. the State. from Wood cOu
II. The Intent TO willfully obstru
public road Is the glst Of the offen
aubced by article 405 OF the pen
The term "willfuln In legal pa
' e signities with evil intent, y
.al mallce,n or "without reason
ground to believe the act 10 be La
and q trial court charging ia
n a case involving this quests
aid, gs an essential part OF The Ia
be case, instruct the jury as to [
| 4 meaning OF the word "wllful
| ng Insufficient to show the app
IS 'evil intent" the evidence
case il insufficient TO sustain !
vietion for obstTueting "A pub
1. Reversed and remRnded.