Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-02

charge of the court is excepted to
at the time this court will reverse
the case without further inquiry as
to the effect such error may have had up
on the result Of the trial. In this case the
court in charging upon the provisions Of
Act 594, subdivision one %,
used the word "passion" in
stead of the word "provocaton" used in
the statute, and being excepted to is re-
yersiblc error.
An objection that the indictment does
not show upon its face nor aver that it
was presented IN the district court, must
be ayailcd of by motion TO quash and not
by motion in arrest. Such objection goes
to form and not to substance. Reversed
and reminded. Opinion by White, p. }.
Tx parte james p. Lynn. This is an
original application for the writ OF habeas
corpus in a msdemCanor case, the relator
being in custody BY virtue of commit
mcut by Il Justice of the peace OF Milan
county. No application was made to the
county Judge Of that county before apply-
ing to this court Held, that articles 1873
and 1879 c. G.. r., while not mandatory,
clearly indicate that the application for
the writ, in the first instance, should be
made TO the local Judge or court. This is
in accord with, and in furtherance of, one
Of the cardinal principles OF our system
I OF goyernmcnt,wh is to localiZc, as far
rs practicable to localiZe, the administra-
/ tiou of the law
While the jurisdiction of this court is
not questioned to issue the writ in such a
case, it is held that it is within the dis.
crction Of the court, or its Judges, to re-
/ fuse the writ when there has been no an
| plication made to the local Judge or court,
and no valid reason shown why il was
not.
In this case the reason for applying to
this court is that the county Judge is so
! prciudiCcd against relatur and his busi-
ness, that of a retailer of liquor, that he
cannot expect fair and impartial hear
ing before him. Held that this is not
valid reason why we should depart from
the general rule above announced. IT,.
upon the hearing, the order of the court
Is not satisfactory to the relator, he has
his remedy by appeal to this court. AID
plication refused. Opinion by Wilson, j,
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company VS..
Teresa Slater, appeal from Travis. Ac-
ton by appellee to recover the value OF
baggage lost or destroyed through the
negligence of the company At the Aus
tin term the court reversed the Judgment
because certain articles, the value of
which was recovered, to-wit; a meer-
schaum pipe, family portrait, family
group photograph and a mirror. were not
baggage. On motion for rehearing the
court say: CATER more careful consid-
GRAFTON Of the subject we have come 10
the conclusion that we were in error. AS
the appellant received the box as baggage
and charged extra compensation for It's
transportation at baggage rates, no cues
ton being asked by its agent, or misrep-
reSentation made by appelle, is not the
carrier responsible for its loss or destruc-
ton, though in fact there were articles IN
the trunk or box which were not properly
baggage? We are of the opinion that this
question should be answered in the affirm
alive. Stoncman VS.. Erie Railway Com
pany, 80 N. Y, 429; Railway Company
VS.. Swift, - Wallace, 2G2, Rehcarinr
granted and Judgment affirmed. Opin.
ion by Hurt, j.
Arthur Lloyd vs.. The State, appeal from
Jones' Defendant beng on trial for
murder, ii was shown by The state that
while under arrest and without warning
he confessed that he sold certain horse
to one Merchant. After this witness
for the state was allowed to testify, over
V"JNtliou' JhHu AFTER the homicide tone
Newt. Oglc, brother Of the deceased,
came to Merchants and claimed the
morse as the property of deceased" The
admissibility OF the confession is con
coded, as it led to the ending of the
horse, but the statement OF the witness is
objected to. Held, that the evidence was
hearsay and evidently madmlsSible. but
as the Newt Oglc alluded to tcs,iled in
the case rs TO deceased ownership OF the
horse and that he found him IN possession
OF Merchant, the admission Of the cvj.
dence objected TO could not have Injured
/ appellant and is not cause for reversal.
Affirmed, Opinion by Hurt, j.