The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-01-03
cnrRrol APphALs.

W
upon an INF rnalion charging wilht
and wsnton killing of a COW. Proc
clearly showed Hitting of the COW. There
was evidence tending strongly tn show
that the COW was in appellants eucl rs
ure when shot. She was found near his
fence, outside OF his enclosure. Appel
lant's fence is not q lawful one. The
prosecution was had under Art. $50. u.
{. Held: This conviction caunot STAND
on that article. Ii the COW " as killed in
appellants encl sure aud his leuce was
not lawful, Arr. tS5, i. q. applies. A,
the evidence stood, IL WAS error for the
court to reius the instruction aske I, to-
wit: "lf you ( he jury) believe from
the eyidehc tuat Inc COW, charged to
have been Killed, was killed in The field
OF the Defendant, you cannot tinu him
guilty under tins prosecution" Re-
yersed and remhuded.
Price VI the STATE, from Wood county ::
OPINION by White, p j. Uuder aitlcl,
405, Z g., the gi>t OF the otl'ense j.
whether ar not the act was NilliullN
done. When the wO Il "willlui" il
used in Il penal statute To characterize
the iOr biGden act, II means evil Inteut,
or legal malice, or without reasona blt
ground to believe the act to he lawIui
The court changing jury upon cas-
involving this Question:, should, as al
essen lial part oi LAe law OF the case, d
fine the meaning Of the word wiiliu.
The evidence ialllng 10 show any ev !
intent on the part of appellant, is IN
sufficient. Reversed and Iemanded.
VIVA. Taylor VS. the State, from Harr =
county; OpiriOn 10y Wilson,
There is ample evidence to warrant the
"a.
sault with intent to murder. Ky their
they believe the evidence, and We can
not disturb their tudiug. There was no
evidence demanding "a change on Tho
law of manslaughter. The acts of dc
fendaut shoN ed del Iteration thrOugh
out the difficulty, and there are no ci
cumstances SHOWING that ne was aclu-
ated Uy "suddeu passion" arising
from "adequate cause" Affirmed.
Logan ". The State; rom Iarranl
county, Opinion hy White, p. j. A bt
Of exception i'll a criminal case mus
state the ground of exc pllOn urged to
the Introduction OF evidence. 1t was
error in The court 10 refuse to allow ap.
pellant to prove by l.. that On the day
before the homicide r., tie hired hano
Of s., tho deceased, had warned appel
liant To be ON his guard, a. ), was hunt
Ing for him, and that on the day before
the homicide L. came TO appellant
house ind warned BIN that ;. was hunt.
ing Tor him and swure that he Isl
would have "blOUd or something
else" As tle deleus9 WAS selt-defenSe,
and the thoUry Ot the defense was thai
at the time defendant drew his pistol
deceased, by his act 5 and conduct, wa
apparently about to draw 4 weapon g.
ha n al IA sla a
PENDANT drew aud fired the pistol to pre-
vent the danger, ana in defense o his
own life, aud IN tht5 view of the case.
the evidence was admissible 10 show
what Impre sion was produced in the
mind Of Ieio uuant rs AN inducing cause
for more prompt action. Reversed aud
remanded.
Sheppard vs.. tho State; from Fall,
county. Opinion by White, p. !. The
charging portion of the indictment
reads: "On", Catherine sheppard, with
force an arms i'm the county and state
aforesaid, then and there being AN adult
female, pregnant and biz With certain
child, did then aIu there give birth u
said child, whlrh was theu ana ther,
wholly born. alive aud In existence by
natural hirth, then and thert
having an Independent circu-
latlou and existence separate ana
apart from her g. the mother of
tho sons; ant said Catherine 5 leppard,
Immediately after suiu child was then
and there horn alive ~ afuTe, aid, in and
upon tho per 'Ou OF her said child uulaw.
iully ana ~ ii uiiN ,iGiunlUusly ard vi Gel
malice ai0rethuughJ did Jhon ami there
make an assault, aud that she, the sdIu
Catherine Shv. naId, Ia some way and
manner AMI ~ sOma means 10 the
grand jurors unkuuwr, did then and
there Wliuliy, iriul ously aud of nor
malice alurcihOnght Nil aud murder E,r
said chi u 80 tuHt said child then ana
there ms lUfly dtcu. Ana 50 tho gran
jurors Aforesaid, upOn their oAths atOl,.
said, do say tina said Catherine Suep-
pari, hen said Child M the manner aud
form Aforesaid and by the means ainr,
said Kan ana murder, otc. Held:
sufficient. The evidence In this case l.
insufficient tu sustain he verdict, and
for that reason the judgment is reversed
and tho cnusc rcmanded. Reversed aud
remand, Il.
Missouri Pacific Railway VS.. Round
tree, nom Smith county Opinion 10y
Wilson, ]. While the declarations at Il
supposed agent are not of themselves
admissible tu prove his agency AMI
authority, they aIe admissible for such
purpose ~ connection with other evil
dcncu which tends ID establish such
agency aud authority. Where IL was
sufficiently proven that & Mas the stock
aud damage agent of appellant aud ~
such had authority To make settlement
OF such claims a, gpprlire's, letter
written hN q giving q reason for not
paying appel c's ella M when demanded
OF hin, WAS admissible la evidence.
While the lrtTor i,sclf l. fhc best ,vi
den Q. the fact that the contents were
otherwise proven, l. NOT ground Tor
reversu when il IL apparent from
tho whole record tha tine party
Onl,clvE 20 | Ia, nut hoob ~ ia al,
Nor Il d the court err id "r,mijting an.
pe.lce To NtNe that Gliel he had Oeeu
employ Ivy Il ~ physician, that g.
tho dmrsge u Stock Hgel ut tie com.
pany, toH Hppe lee, some time aiter h.
had been employed ~ DR.. ii, that he
was aybyslGiAn IN the employ Of the
company. Allirmed.
VII To, executor, ". Smith ~ al. ron,
Gregg county. Oulnion by vii son /
Hiram Smth neld ~ benefit cert,ticatt
In the NJ, ), T. y Il. asso iatiou for the
sum of $1,000, PAYABLE to said Hiram
Sml h or order. He died posses ed nj
this cert Il ate without ha'i.g ~ signed
IL. He left a will " which appe LIANT
was appointed ,Xecu or, which VIII was
duly prohated. Appellant qualified aud
inveU tori d the pol v ~ part al tn,
estate. by the will he devised r.he chilnr, u
OF ID. NJ. smith, then living, $1,000 sud
the remainder ,f his property 10 Robert
smith; providing, however, that all his
debts be naid. This IL suit by thu
heirs against the NJ. \. Il, and Il. AsSu.
citation oi America, In which appellant
interviewed. On exception, appellant,
intervention was stricken out, Tn,
certificate Ia question being Nh ordinary
endowment policy primarily intended
To- benet III the insured himself, no ON,
else had any interest In IL, aud the np
pellant correctly inventnried IL ~ par
Of the estate. Reversed aud rem tered in
favor of app llant.
Texas Il Pacific railway vs.. TAYLOR
from Bowie county Opinion 10y viii
son, SGit tor damages Tor killing d
"prairie Jack"-ludgment for Sl25. tn,
Asa. A = a. a