Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-04

NNNtN NFftoln tNot tillt NNHvfNIIlN has
been abused, this court VIII lls.t fctErS.
counsel.
Logon, a wilncss Tor the state, scsal:.6
~ follows had a conr fsalioa NIL
him out and called him Davis, M s..4 Is
his namc was not Davis, chat hls ns,,,.
was Thompson To this tvidens@ AK
iendaat objected on the Ground thas 4.
was IN custody, and reserved hla h.,.
I llcld, that defendant being III Sussn,s
whether for this or any other oIIt,,sn M,
confessions were not admlsSihlc h.ais.s
4 him, but the evidence heiMg nyefwha,..'
lng rs to hts guilt, tho admlssl0n n XXI.
Illegal testimony Is not caase iot ,e
versal.
4 There is no rule OF law holdmu shat
{ prisoner could murder his kccpef. az ths
officer Ia charge o, him, and because ~
WAS u prisoner his acts and ticclaratlona'
before aud az tho tlluc 0f ghc kHliur'
could not he adluced ~ evidences araIhSt
I HIM, Such acts and declaration, pfcetd.
ling the homicide, are not cunsesssons
lSiihin the rulc excluding such whes
made In arrest and without waft,lps
5 Affirmed Onlnlon by Hurt, J,
4 John ileuseNa tho state, appeal lro,s
7 Gonzales In tho iAhlctnipm X
WAS alleged That John and
I Fred Duderstadt were the avs.
ms Of the aniDials stolen, aud DC cyI.
I denco showed that they had TIE ,soh
Z seSson, charge and control az the same.
such heing the case, II was not iiecvtsarg
Z 60 prove want 81 consent ~ their father.
! Andrew, who was the Syal owner. Feas
4 lnr vs.. State, IL eli App, i9i, llaliey Va.
State, s ch. App iaG
Where the dolcndants wlfe testified In
I HIS behalf that a short time hOforo 4 naA
camc 20 her house looking FOR Siulun eat.
tie, one "SncIder had brought some
cattle 20 deicn6ants pon put them
IN and banded thcm,M Ii MS
not error 80 permit the state "a pruve bg
the shcrln thlt he had received Official
notice that sMd SuVldcr had been ~
leased hy other parties from the pcnItnns
tiary and WAS now Il roiiigee from iuslsqs
4 Statements mado by the defendant *
TO his possession 81 the stolen caitir
made after he had parted wild, such
possession, arc self-scrving and ina,l
mlsslhlo Ia his behalf
ON objection by The State 60 doicnd.
ante counsel asking leading questions ii
his witness, the court remarbttli ssiNt
him 10 OH, have cautioned hlia Feyefa
times. reckon tho iuPy have sense a0ou NJ
TO know whether the wli,iaks v
tclllgg The truth or n3i ileld
that tic reun,lk ,yas M,
ia reelection npop mo ycrae!ty II IN NH.
ncss, noroalrulatrdto setlbas, N ,,geiu,iIc,
defendant.
Before this court VIA reversed eoaigt.
ton hecause 81 remarks madVhy prOSe-
that t6py ,yern t,p,,fnref aol INK ,bse
were IA II lnatafiaI ehefactf,, ma s,,,.s \.
unt;sr IN, Observation-Disclosures, ,ebf,, ealesf,,.sl
IN fninrlc,,eh sffart. Nh ssfe,,,lS,it,s ,Is6,
AAlr8a5 0pininn m Whlte. y
Chnriea ma Ata,v ultIrath ,,s Ia
state aratonl from Tiine. IA I'M aialrlr,
AMIN al ,iJtns r,,i,nfv hba lafl,. listiau y,
IN Observation-Disclosures nver ,yhish en,r,,s
ctl,,ts h,,ve iuTili,,tlon ,n,er il,s ,..',,,,,sl
tao, a. tlo sbte IA IN, sns,,,,,,,E Xxx, 4,
sis sroaenfti"o Il ,yas nran..,' p,e,rt,,... u \,
: nFneer9 by Inflammation, n, thst ,,6,,,. AZ.
f, 9aen'a MN" o'lritng, ~ VI tes, wv
: finn nr n,di,sf,nsnt fht. a8uifery Il VI ,,n,
,.l,,f.,i y, M, IN. "a M, II, ,,,s
KIN, ,,, \ I ',,
n,r n h, ,ess,,tf,,i III stls%,s NM ,,,n,,. N
tb, ne,5,, +, ,,,b,, ~, n AK, g,.e.
! X ,,,rrtfI NJ d. .,4it;Ais,.p n, NM, MI,
onn@t ttein A. ,nr,i,,i y, s,,,,,s l,,,e ,,s,
enn ,han thp nprsan ,ia, n.iasm IA,
lnI,,ltrrg X cir,,sed
.rhnl XIX MONUMENTAL, ,,.A f,6S,,,.e AZ K,
/ ree,i,in., niislfi,., t5,t,,,5te,,ts, INA M
sna5ise ni XII. ytae i1vIn,s r,,,,l.,s tsru
o,3ltg if ,lif,.,,5,i,.ie fi,,y eanfin6r theg,
ef,'lf,,r,,,s ieisYt5s,s,s, ,stytss,g tn,1,
/, irnpt {ro,n ,tiisial.a nf ffst tViip nye,;,,,s,
4 ,t,,