The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-23


for all the covenants and conditions i'm
posed upon the tenant by the lease. The
cotton was, therefore, subject to the
landlords claim ana was legally seized.
Reversed and remanded.
Thos. Kew VS.. the State, from Con
tales county. The question in this case
is whether or not defendant took the
alleged stolen animal upon the author.
ity OfG, believing at the time that G
had the authority TO authorize him To
do so, and not whether q, the party
whom defendant claimed gave him an-
thority TO take such animal, had the au-
thority to so authorize him, and the
court erred in refusing to give the spe-
cial instruction asked, which was: aft
the account given by the defendant of
the reasons which induced him to take
the animal is reasonable and probably
true, or if defendant believed it to be
true, whether it was true or not, the
jury should acquit the defendant.
Whether or not G had any authority to
sell the animal or did III fact authoaize
defendant to take it, If defendant be-
lieved that G. had such authority, the
jury should acquit the defendant. Re-
versed and remanded.
Kelley VS.. the State, from Gonzales
county. When IL is necessary to estGb-
fish identity in developing the res g5s
tae, or in making out the guilt of the
accused by circumstances connected
with the theft, or to explain the intont
with which the accused acted with re
spect to the property with the theft o.
which he is charged, it is competent to
prove that other property was
stolen at or about the
same time and place, and
that such other property was
found in defendants possession when
arrested for the theft OF the property for
which he is being tried, but it is the
duty of the court to explain to the jury
the purpose of such proof. Reversed
and Iemanded.
International Il Great Northern Raj.
way company VS.. Sauls, from William
son county. Whenever a Judgment is
reversed and remsnded by this court at
the cost OF appellee, the costs thus adj
judged against him include the cost OF
the transcript IS well as the costs of aI-
peal. Goats are here retaxed and judg-
ment rendered against appellee for all
the costs in the case on both appeals,
including the costs on both transcripts.
Marin VS.. the STATE; from Brown
county. The conviction ia this case
Was had under an indictment which
charged the offence denounced by Arr.
| 365, p. G. The court charged The jury:
"ShOuld you believe that there was a
lease from Defendant to some other per-
son of the room in which the gaming
took place, and that said room was
| leased for gaming house to the know
| ledge Of defendant, you will find him
guilty as charged in the indictment"
Held: This charge had reference to the
offence denounced by Art. 366. p. g.,
which IS separate and distinct offence,
| having a different punishment TO thai
charged i'll the indictment. Reversed
and remonded.
Miller VS.. the State; from Coryell
county. II an application for a cOntin-
nance is refused by tho court in
the first instance, though sulli
Gent as an application in showing the
exercise of due negligence, etc, in the
effort tC procure the attendance of alb
sent witnesses, and the same is renewed
in and made ground of the motion for
new trial, the testimony as set out in
the application should be considered in
connection with the evidence adduced
on the trial. and If found To be material
and probably true, the motion for naw
trial should be granted. 1t is not error
to prevent witness to state that de.
PENDANT was excited when he returned
to the place at which he saw him shor,
time before, Reversed and remanded
! Wilson VS.. the State; from Comanche
county. When court adjourned on Sep
| tember 10, and the statement of facts
was filed September 30, it is held that
within ten days. In the compute
ton of law the day epon which
the act is done from which time is to be
computed, il ordinarily excluded from
tho court, and this rule applies to the
time within which appeal bonds must
be given. 1t was a question as to
whether the property was taken
for q more temporary or PORN.
anent appropriation, The courC did
not submit this issue as its charge
nor was exec ption talxon to the omis
sion or specials charge asked; the
question was first raised on the motion
for new trial. The issue being part of
the law rendered necessary to be giveu
by the facts, its omission was reversi.
BILE error. Reversed ana remanded.
Bledsoe VS.. the State; from Wilson
county. Where a judgment entered in
a misdemeanOr case does Dot direct that
q "capiss forthwith issue commanding
the sheriff TO arrest the defendant and
commit him to Jail until such fine and
costs are paid, 1t is not such final jugd-
ment rs will give the court jurisdiction
Of the appeal. Appeal dismissed
Greene VS.. the State; from Coleman
county. Conviction for theft of a COW,
Punishment assessed at two years in
the penitentiary. The Indictment and
charge Of the court are good and suih
cient and the continuance not showing
sufficient diligence, was properly over.
ruled. Affirmed.
Henson VS.. the State; from BexaI
| county. Conviction for infantlcide
Punishment assessed at life time in the
! penitentiary, The evidence, indictment
and charge Of tho court are sufficient
and the continuance was probably true
/ Affirmed.