Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-03-22
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered at
the Galveston Sitting of the
Court Of Appeals,
Made Up From the Full and Official Re-
port Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered.

county. When the defendant in q
felony case pleads guilty, the recerd
must show affirmatively, First--Tbat
he was admonisned by the court OF the
coDss quepces. Second-That he was
sane nc the time. Third-Tbat In en-
tering such plea he was uninflueDced
by any consideration OF f ar, or by any
persuasion or delusive hope Of pardon.
. The states position that the r. CT
tai in the judgment that the defend.
ant, "in open court, duly entered his
plea of guilty." shows affirmatively
that all the r, quisiies Of a valid plea OF
guilty were complied with, is entitled
to no consideration in view Of the fact
| that, In his verified motion for new
trial, the defendant swears that he
was not admOnished OF the conse
queIces Of his pea OF guilty, and that
| he was Influenced to make IL by being
told that If he did go he would be
| tiary, whereas II he pleaded not gJilty
he would be awarded five years, The
rule il peculiarly applicable IN view of
the further TACT that the state did not,
AZ IL might have done. jpiu issue
with the defendant on the truth of the
motion. Reversed and remsnded.
Peralto VS.. the : ate, from Bexar
county. Indictment for theft should
ape officially charge that the intent II
the accused wss to deprive the owner
"f the stolen property "of the value Of
the same" Such statutory words, be
ing ssential to defiue th-'t, cannot be
supplied by inference and intendment.
Rover. ed and dismissed.
Rhodes VS.. the State, from Calves
ton county. If the evidence in muir
der case tends In no degree to estab-
lish lower grade Of homicide, thsn
murder OF the first degree, the trial
court properly refuses to charge the
jary upon inferior grades This was
capital conviction for murder, the
murdered woman being the appellants
wife and is amply supported by the
evidence. Affirmed.
Paul Va. the s ate, from Dallas coun-
ty. An appellants counsel cannot
withdraw Il felony appeal to this court
upon motion signed by himself. Such
motion must tie signed by the appel.
liant In person, anu his signature au
thenticsted 10y the clerk OF the trial
court. See the first ruling in Harris
Va Htste, from Bexsr county supra
A rule applicable to cases wherein the
accused enters his plea of guilty is a.
|
Tense Is not ybsolutely fixed by law.
end beyond the power OF the jury to
graduate IL In any manner, Jury
shall be impannelled 10 assess the pun
ishment, and evidence submitted to
enable them TO decide thereupon "
Reversed and remanded.
Ex.parte Earlier ct ais from Titus
county. With ut the proper certiti
cate OF the clerk of the trial court, and
the tie and seal required by Law col
: lection of paper. sent to this court will
not be considered as an authenticated
4. transcript on appeal. The papers be
fore this court in this proceeding, pur-
] port to be n transcript of the pro
ceedings in the lower court ia
hearing on hates corpus, but
; they are, evidently. but some Of the
original papers, unauthenticated and
! are not tied and sealed as required by
law. But II autht nticated and certi.
, fled, such a bundle Of papers would
I still be deficient as proper transcript
t for the following reasons:
= ! Itdoes not contain the writ OF
: hsbeas corpus.
, . II does not contain the return OF
: the officer holding the applicants.
RI : Ii does not show that notice ofap.
4 peal from the Judgment was given.
4. 1t does not chow by what author.
4 ity, whether by request OF applicants
or order of prosecuting coubstl,ethe ap-
b neal wa sent to this branch of the
court OF appeals, For the two rules OF
Z, providil & in habess corpus cases, see
articles ISL and 1872 Of The code OF Grim.
inal procedure, Applicants In this
case were arrested for an otfense COM
q mitted In M county, and the writ OF
habeas corpus WAS heard In 4 county.
: II, in fact, the order refusing bail was
appealed from, the judge below shnu
. have noted that fact by order. All ni
Y the proceedings and papers shou d
then have been transmitted TO the di,.
z trict clerk o nj county, whose duty
D ON proper applic ,tion of the state or
applicants, it would then become 10
/ prepare n proper transcript rs In other
(, appealed cases, and certify Il Q sam.
Q 10 the court OF appeals at Galveston
0 Motion to dismiss appeal sustained
0 Dupree va. the State, from Harris
o county. Win the inoulpatory evi.
deDce against n defendant on trial IL
purely circumstsntial, 1t Is the imper.
alive duty OF the court to give In
= charge the law of such evidece. The
evidence Ia this, theft case, was OF
| butu nature Ms 10 uenAuu or the
I court charge upon the voluntary re-
!. turn of stolen property within a
! reasonable time, and before the insti
tuition Of criminal proceedings. Re
versed aud remapded.
Turner vs. the State, from Tarrant
county Charge Of the court, II err.
4 roneous, ~ to the penalty affixed Ia
!, an II nee on trial, even though 1t be
; In favor Of sn accused, will set aside a
I conviction, whether excepted or not
; In the language II the tt.tute now in
a force Acts IL Leg, p. sly robbery is
!. punishable 'Uy confinement in the
: peniteniiary for lie. Or flr a term not
= less than Ave years The charge in
: this case informed the Jury that the
: punishment WAS confinement In he
a p-nlteniiary for term not less than
five } ears, or for lIfe." Held, a mere
tvanspositlon OF language, meaning
the same, and not objectionable. The
record falling 10 show that in entering
: his pleA guilty the accnaad ,,yas