Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-24
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered at the
Austin Sitting of the Court
Of Appeals,
Made Up From the Full and Official Re.
port Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered
Compiled for tho Gazette.


instrument in writing required by law
to be recorded has been proved, 1t Is
not required that 1t be fled and notice |
given in order to qualify it as evil
dence. Such proceeding is necessary |
only when the execution Of an instru-
ment required to be recorded has not
been proved. AS tending to identify
the animal alleged to have been
stolen US one of the animals bought
by H. of o. by bill OF sale, 1t was not
error to permit witness to
describe the brands of the
cattle conveyed by y. to II. 1t
being efficiently shown that two wit.
nesses were beyond the limits of the
state, the testimony of two witnesses
taken before the examining rial was
properly admitted. In its exercise of
its discretion in admitting evidence
after the conclusion of the argument,
| it will be revised only when abuse of
the discretion is made TO appear. Fail
! ing to show proper diligence, 1t was
proper to override an application for
continuance. An Objectionable charge
of the court should be excepted to ut
the proper time, or q correct charge
asked, in order to secure the attention
of this court, unless it presents an err
ror fundamental in its character, and
calculated in the light of the whole
case to prejudice the rights of the ac-
cused. The principal evidence in this
case, while meager, is sufficient II
credible TO support the verdict and of
its credibility the jury were the proper
judges. Affirmed.
Illusion vs. the State, from Fannin
county. A special venire of forty
eight jurors were summoned to try
this case. While the bill of exceptions
fails to state that the list had been fur
nisbed the defendant one day Ia adj
vance of trial, it does state that all the
veniremen were present in court and
were qualified jurors. When the
names on the list were called, five of
the veniremen failed to answer, and
the court refused TO have them called
into court and placed in the box to be
passed upon, for the reason, as shown
by the record, they were then in retire
ment as members of jury in another
felony case, considering of their YER
dict, which said case was tried before
this case was called. or the remain
ing veniremen but nine jurymen were
selected, and the court, over the defend.
ants objection, ordered the sheriff to
summon twenty talesmen to complete
the panel. The court explained that
the defendant did not request q
postponement of this case until
after the jury had been impaneled
and sworn. See arts. 617 and GAO, G..
G. P, upon the subject of impaneling
Jury In a capital case. Held, in
CHI App, 346, that the court has no
right in advance OF the selection of the
jury from the special venire to excuse
any of the jurors so summoned, and
they cannot be excused until they
have appeared at the time and placed
in the venire facias, and until their
names are called and tested in the
order in which they appear on the
venire facias. In this case, the trial
should have been postponed until the
verdict in the former case was rem
dered. Reversed and remanded.
Ex psrte Duffey, from Limestone
county, upon charge of theft from
the person, the appellant was held tc
bail in $500, by a justice OF the peace
Upon hearing OF writ of habea;
corpus, the appellant was remanded,
and appeals. Two questions arise: Does
|
to believe that ali oflense has beer
committed by appellant? And is thu
= amount of bail, under the facts shown
excessive? Held,
/. There was no error in Remaining
the applicant tojail.
l. 2. In view of the meagerness o
the criminative facts against the az
pellant, the bail Is excessive, and !
;, hereby reduced to $3.50. Ordered &C
cordingly.
re Bland VS.. the State, from Wise. Thi
70 was a conviction for the thtft OF
\ horse. The indictment alleges tha
n the horse was taken from the posses
~ sion of one X and that it WAS tn
property of III. 1t negatives the coz
10 sent OF III but does not negative TIA
n consent of X, who is alleged TO hay
I the possession, Held fatal to the in
n dictment wherefore the judgment
N reversed, and the prosecution dis
" missed.
I Anderson vs.. the State, from Hen
ID derson county; Indictment for perJur
al committed upon criminal trlal mus
4. show afiirmatively the jurisdiction
"a the court over such criminal trial, or
m will be fatally defective. This may b
of done either by direct allegation or D
is statement OF facts from which tn
jurisdiction, in law, will appear.
at ct. App. 579) There is more than on
ea offense included in "unlawfully carry
. ing q pistol, !" and one of the oitenst
q. SO included is not within the jurisdi'
V. ton d a Justice of the peace TO try an
a. finally determine, because II may I
I'd punished by fine exceeding 5000. In
&c indictment does not show either D
=, oyarnaapt dirant 0r nv statement
ia judicial facts, that the justice ha
v. Jurisdiction OF the criminal trial
al which the perjury in this case Is
pe legged. Reversed and dismissed.
We Kramer VS.. the State, from
Ils county. The proceeding In this wa
Ist upon the forfeiture OF an appearanC
e, bond. The principal in the bond WI
", charged with exhibiting saro-ban
,,e for gaming. The appearance boz
AZ describes the ofiense as exhibiting
faro. bank, emitting "ior the purpo'