Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-22
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopsis Of the 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,
complled for ihe oasetto.

county. The cause was called for
trial at the March term, 1854, where
upon the state announced not ready
and asked continuance In order 10
secure the attendance OF a material
witness. The motion being overruled,
the state entered n mol pros. and asked
the retention Of the prisoner in custody
until he could procure another indlct-
ment, which motion, over the objec.
ton of the defendant, was sustained.
This matter was pleaded by defendant
on the trial In bar OF further prosecu-
ton. While the course pursued by the
state in order to secure u continuance,
in order to obtain the presence Of
material witness, Ia not one authorized
by law, II could not under the oircum-
stances OF this case have operated TO
defeat the defendants right To speedy
trial. objection that the defendant
was not arraigned according To law IA
not supported by the record, which
shows a legal though not formal ar
raignment, IL IL only where the in-
obligatory evidence Is purely circum-
stRntial that the court ~ required TO
charge on such evidence. Since he
was not convicted OF murder In the
first degree, appellant cannot complain
| OF the court'a failure 10 properly de-
| fine express malice. Affirmed
Smith VIZ. the State, from Wise
county. This wasa prosecution under
section 2 OF IAN act to define who are
agents OF insurance companies, and to
fix their liability for acting without
authority Of law,p approved July 3,
1879. The information, In substance,
charged that appellant solicited insur-
ance on behalf of the ". II. ms. Co, OF
Philadelphia, aud that he took and
transmitted for one L.. an application
for insurance to said company and
that he delivered TO said Il, policy
OF insurance from sald company and
that he received and collected from H.
the premium, etc, and that said com
pany had not complied with the laws o
this state, nor received the certificate Of
the commissioner OF insurance. TIL,
section supra prescribes the penalty
for y violation OF the law. Over the
objection OF defendant the state wal
properly allowed to prove that, aftel
: the insured house WAS burned, Ia. re
ceived no pay on his policy. Again
, either one OF the acts charged consti
tuted the OIL, nse, and appellant by hi
I own evidence proved himeelf guilty o
/ one OF the acts, and though the evi
. dence complained OF was irrelevant,
did not iniure him, and he cannot b
heard 10 complain. Objections to tn
: charge were hypercritlcAl. Affirmed
Hughes We. the State, from Hun
/ county. A continuance for the wan
Y | 90 81. Ia YarnaAarlu n
o fused, when the application thereto
d shows a want OF exercise Of due dill
Il gence. The indictment In this cas-
), was filed January 3, 1885. Appellar
" was served with copy on the mex
n day. ON the l4th he applied for a
attachment TO b. county for the wi
!. ness G.. On February A. tt
u day before the trial, he apple
for and obtained another attacl
:" ment for the came witness TO II. coul
y ty. He does not show in his apple
u ton when he learned that his wines
was q resident Of Il. and not Is. coul
l. ~, or that he did not know IL when !
70 sued out his attachment TO u. count
7, Held, insufficient TO show due dill
gence. Affirmed.
j. Il. Holden vs. the State, fro
. Wise county. Art 470 OF the Il. q. d.
fines and denounces two oiienBes, or
n to falsely pack an article with inter
to defraud, and the other to sell u
ir falsely packed article with intent
defraud. The complaint In the ca
70, In the first court charges appellal
10 and ii. and X. and ID. A. IL. and
u. with a commission OF the fir
h. offense In falsely packing bale Of CO
ton, and In the second count charg
d that ID. A. b. did falsely sell the san
Nv with intent 30 defraud, etc. Ape
liant being alone on trial after a seve
an ance, moved TO quash the informatiu
because vague, Indefinite, duplicitou
". etc, which motion was sustained ~
th the second count but oveuuled as
the former. Held, correct that u
u. part stricken out could be regarded
mere surplusage, and would leave u
Dr. information sufficient 10 charge q
first ofiense. II Is not necessary In
al case OF this character TO allege q
name Of the party intend'
at- TO be defrRuded. The co
fession Of d. A. Is. made long after
he sold the bale OF cotton, were admis
BILE against the defendan :, becau
made In his presence, unrepudiated
ri him. Affirmed
DI1hhb W.. LllS foLtbei lfOih SpicAo
/, . county. Inaamuch as the Judge on
IA, not comment upon proposed evlden'
objections 10 the same relied up
IA should be clearly stated, and Il
ure 10 assert any objection
been h.ld tantamount 10
"a waiver OF all not affirmative
nv presentod. ct. app, 342 The eeco
objection II unteDable because II
penrs that the defendant, though
ak custody when he made the gtatemen
was properly warned and cautioned
md the officer. Objectionable charges
the court should be excepted to ut
IAN time they are given, In order 70 secl
i'll the attention of this court. The 9
dence In thia case, though circumst
liai, In abundant TO support the v
my dict. Affirmed.
Parker vs.. the State, from FanI
Z. county. In view OF the materially
the absent testimony 10 the defan
and the apparent probability Of