Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-03-09


Nor can one or more omnlieas
oorroborate each other, but the evi.
uence must be from some other source
An accomplish In the sense used
In the foregoing means very one con.
nected with the crime c imnitted. 81.
ther as principal or otherwise Held
| mat the charges asked announced he
law upon the subject. and their refusal
was error Reversed and remanded
York vs. the State, from Dewitt
county. Possessi Of recen ly stolen
property Is but pre- nmptive evidence
against en- accused, and i,stronger or
weaker according 10 tue circumstan ces
amending IL. Any reasonable explain.
alton made OF such pc ssession, by the
party accused, when his right 10 the
property Is first que-tloned, Is s6mis
sloie Tor him; aud Ii not shown TO be
false, rebuts the presumption against
nim, arising from the fact of posses /.
sion, aud neeessltates further evidence
OF MS quit before conviction Ia war.
ranted by Law. The defendants ex-
PLANTATION Of his possession In this case
being amply reasonable, AID the
same not being shown by the state TO
b. false, the conviction Is not support.
ed by the evidence. Reversed and re.
| manded.
Langiord vs. the State, from Lamar
county. ! Indictment for burglary,
where the entry is alleged 10 have
been made by force, need not allege
the non.consent of the owner of occu.
pant Of the premises.
The Safe proved by direct evi.
dence that the accused made the bur-
giarlous entry, but the evidence that
ne stole the property was merely cir
cumstantial | order to establish his
guilt OF the theft, the State WAS per-
mitted TO prove suspicious declaTa-
ton made by him ON the same night,
but before the burglary was COM
United, some distance from the house
burglarized. The 3 ate was also per-
mitted To prove certain interviews on
the day after the burglary, between
the accused ana one w the party In
whose possession the stolen property
WAS found on the said day
after the burglary. Held, that
such evidence was legitimate, aud
was not Objectionable as an attempt
to establish conspiracy after
the contamination of the crime
by the arts and declarations Of one CO.
conspirator against another. Held,
further, thst anything the defendant
may h We done and said after the con-
summation of the crime tending 10 es-
tablish his guilt, WAS proper evi.
dence against him az though it was
said and done before the crime was
contaminated.
8. Another rule upon the subject Is
as follows: When the guilt Of an ac-
cused Is made 10 depend upon circum-
autial evidence alone, the mind is
p omitted to seek light from any
source. however remote.
A Objections TO the charge OF the
court, unless they present errors es,
sentially material, or of y character
which, In view OF the evidence, sc.
riously affects the rights of the defen-
dant, will not be considered when
raised for the first time la this court.
Affirmed
Mansfield VS. the State. from Har-
din county. |, Indictment charged
that, on December %, 1888, the de-
PENDANT followed the occupation of
selling spurious liquors In quantities
less than aquart without license aud
without having psid the tax II was
objected that IL failed TO allege the
year in which he pursued the occupa.
lion, and the year for which he failed
20 pay occupation tax The objection
Is not tenable
. Article ITO of the penal code re-
peals section of the act " Msrch %.
1881, in 80 far as under that act 1t was
necessary that an indictment for SELL
ing liquors without having paid the
license tax, should allrge the name Of
the party OF parties TO whom the liquor
was sold. The decisions on pages 476
and $50 ofthe IL Texas court OF appeals
reports do not now apply
8. The oifense denounced by article
ITO Of this penal code Is the pursuing
of any occupation taxed by
law, without first OBJ aining q
cense therefor. The cas.s of Bdrch
vs. ire Republic, / Texas, Cos, and
| Alexander vs.. the state. 80 Tex Is, 1876.
arose under statutes regulating the
sale of intoxicating liquors, and do
rot apply 10 cases arising under the
article of the code referred TO.
The indictment a legged both the
amount of the tax due the state aud
the amount due the, county. The
! prosecution tali 10 ehoW that tue
county had levied an occupa-
zion tar on liquor dealers, and the
court charged the jury that the proee-
cution could be ubiutsined only for
the amount oftsxes due the state, and
the Jury found accordingly. The de-
rense contepded that, Ia order to con-
vict at all II was incumbent on the
state to prove both allegations and
asked q spt cial charge to such effrc',
which WAS refused Held, that
the charge as given was correct, and
the special charge was properly re-
fused, All med.
Cheyarrio va. the State, from Webt
| county. ]. n ,twitbstandiug the c m
mon law rule and the pr ,cticA prevail
ent in this state, it is MT essential un,
der our eide that au indie msnt should
state that the grand jurors weresworn
or that the presen' ment was made
upon their oaths or Officinatious. lit
sufficient IL II appears from the iEdlcl,
ment that IL was the act OF grand
iurv NJ the nrOEar pDunty