Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-11
EOURT OF APPEALS.
40 NJ the Decisions Rendered at
yss lus,in Sitting Of the Court
Of Appeals.
,,o from tho Fall and Official Re-
,ort of The Rulings and
Opinions Rendered.
:, me Port Worth & Denver City
railway VI. SiiDal from Tar
rant County. Afllrmtd.

Fort Worth g. Denver City
ray vs. Single, from Tsrrani
~ This was suit for damages
riuries received by appellee while
Assepeer on appellants train. II Is
cted that the court erred in recelv-
N !, ldence that on. t., fellow-pas-
lar with the appellee, was injured
Y he same collision The objection
!. |. well taken. The rule is that the
|IIf sraii0ns Of any persons present,
&...le Ia the heat Of the emergency
MA iorruing a part of the incident,
be proved rs part Of the res geste.
~ Trial Ev.. Sec. 10. Evidence Of
"a ats and declarations of Others in
ssme peril are competent az part
Ili n res geste Id seo 81. Under
+ y rules, II the acts and declarations
<bers are competent, fortiori, the
ia that they received II juries at the
"
|Esible. Rules governing expert ties.
lony are laid down In Abb. Trial
= sec. 46, Under these rules the
5lmoDy Of the attending physician
|l}bls Gaze, showisg the serious nature
I8ppellte's II jurie,, was admissible
{harge Of the court must be con.
Med ~ whole and not in detached
t4tions. In view of the fact that
Y Ne two sections objected to are
&ught up in the record, this court
p mot hold the charge erroneous
mined.
\ lehman We. the State, from Parker
#nty To warrant an inference or
#sumption'of guilt from the posses
4 Of property recently stolen, such
0isesslon must he personal, IL
1lst he recent, 1t must be
and 1t must involve p
4tinet and conscious assertion of
BIerty by the defendant Wharf
&-Ev SEC, 35S Burrell on Circum-
4ntisl Evidence defines clearly the
taning and extent of The word "per.
pal" az applied to possession OF re-
pity stolen property, which amounts
fsub ,tsnce.to an eX lusive possession.
n Wharton's Grim Ev., sections
\ and $50 for proper deiuiton of the
prd recent" az applied to possession
Stolen property. II was properly
1ld In 40 Mich, 292 that "possession
stolen goods INN ediately after the
Ieft may sometimes be almost con-
lslye Of guilt, but the presumption
fakensyas the period oftime lengthens
alween the theft and the possession
@creases. and may scarcely arise at all
'others be ides the accused have had
luai acce's to their bearing upon
|ch presumption F" For full inter.
|etation of the phrase 1.-THE presump-
PA must he unexplained,n gee AZ
tx t5S; IA CT App SO; Is Tex
h. In general terms, the rule is
fted thus: If person in whose ex.
pslve possession goods recently
pien are four d, fails reasonably to
count Tor his possession when called
pCn 10 explain, or when the facts are
Ia az TO require an explanation of
In, the presumption arising from re-.
Enl ioss and possession will warrant
conviction without further proof
|ustuch Inference or presumption is
Of TACT and should be submitted to
Ps Jury The charge of the court
~ not In this case sufficiently present
'ntule Reversed And remanded.
meihand!z VS. the State, from Bexsr
Puniy' Theindictment in this case
ample tn charge the offpnse of per-
fy All 746 Of the G G. p. provides
san, In trials for perjury, no person
De convicted except upon the
['nmony OF two creditabIe witnesses
uee cprroboiated strongly by other
'aaehee az TO the falsity OF the de.
uaants statements under oath, or
NV MS own confession in open
nv Art 745 of the same code in
psnss isquires the court, II the require
\ re Az VI Art. 746 be not complied With,
u,iect The jury 10 find q verdict OF
~ Deuiiai, and the jury is bound by
n ns'rnction. AS TO what IL cor.
,voianng evidence see 9 Bish. Or
~ , 20 zee sS2; Russ., on Crimea, @
',,o %, Whar. Or. Ev sec. 3S7. Such
,nn 'ss evidence may be cir
,htlal, consisting of proof
n independent facts which to-
sssl tnd to establish the main
bI.h nat lie the falsity of the oath, and
= ~ together strongly corrObOrste
~, nulh ~ the testimony OF the single
s VINO has ties itied to such falls
: -, Ia This case the court did not err
cs S,uslnR to direct an acquittal. But
= s,use tue court erred in admitting
rn ,ao,'tlnony Of A who was the at
10y 10y OF the defendant in the cause
aS S,'ih The alleged false affidavit was
l 40 ~ ~ ravention of ar icle 733 Of
AZ " r., the judgment is reversed
y sue cause renamed.
su u,ieii vs.. Barrack ct AL, from Wise
rany II Is well settled that an
',,idnt by the principal to pay
4 interest will not discharge
a surety. Such a promise being
i ~ law, does not constitute valu.
:, n voueioeratlon, and an agreement
q a creditor tn extend the time OF
-, Uoiiec'i' OF he deb in consider
co. ~ y, usuiy, without the knowledge
ssa seat OF the surety, will not dis
H. 'he latter, w Il w Con r.,
"a In this case IL was not stipu-
~ tue written contract, the note,
- 'Iec'iy or indirectly, that the
ms should pay usury. Tle ra'e
~ stipulated for was ltgsl, and
4 uIt.us contract between b kros
Ia eilant was independent of the
an 49,, "a could have DO legal effect
A., o. Inability OF the sureties (R
fsvo-- s'S } Reversed and rendered