Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-30


Of some person to the grand jury I'M
known" Upon the trial Il appears that
II was the property OF the estate OF one
] Harris, and that the mark and brand on
the bull WAS recorded In the county OF the
prosecution. Held, IL Is well settled
rule that where the grand jury could have
ascertained the name OF the owner Of
/ stolen property by the use OF reasonable
/ diligence, u Is their duty 10 do so, aud
| falling IN this duty a new trial should be
granted
! "Whlc we do not intend to intimate
/ that nm indictment presented without
having the witnesses before the grand
/ Jury would be bad, or that this matter
could be inquired into In any manner
-tlil we desire 10 condemn such prac.
I tlce." Reversed aud remanded. Opln.
I lon by Hurt, j.
Pete johnson VS.. the State, appeal from
/ Washington After the appellant was
! tried under a charge OF nssault with in
tent 10 murder, and convicted Of an ag-
grayated assault, the assaulted party died
I from the effects of the blow within twelve
months. He was then indicted Tor mur.
[ der and the conviction was for man.
. ~ ANHrfiN'Af AAN lfA'ANNA ANIIitI NulNlfa
/ lion Held, where after conviction of
assault the assaulted party dies,
the conviction OF assault rs
/ no bar 20 conviction for murder.
/ The reason IS that as at the time OF the
conviction OF assault there could have
| been no conviction OF the murder. the
| prosecution for the murder Is not barred
\ 10y the conviction of the assault Whar.
/ FL aud rrac. sec. 41G; Bish. Grim.
! Law 1856.
| While 1t Is true that whore an onensc
consists Of different degrees, aud the de-
| icndant, upon Indictment or Information.
/ ~ convicted or acquitted Of any grade OF
such Oifense, such conviction or ac0ult.
tal lsa bar, yet this rule does not apply
( where the higher grade Of the oifense has
I not been completed mt the time Of the con
yictlun OF lesser grade because the
( higher grade did not then exist. Affirmed.
| Opinion by Wilson, j.
Jo Counts VS.. the State, appeal from
/ COmanche. This Us u conviction for steal.
lng horse and the evidence is wholly
clrcumstantlal The court failed To-
Charge upon this character of evidence
Held, that while the conviction is fully
sustained by The evidence, and the court
~ OF the opinion that this failure TO
charge upon the rule did not affect the re-
,,' .,ti Wv "a" iePuI'n huch charge 10
' 'i " ~ i.FVIHNie error 10
w., ~, J'''u anu rcIhHhued' opinion
w W iilSVn, -.
WIS Mc"ulI' vs., inc state, appeal
liyu' NV''luuci'r' Altef reviewing the
r'lu'uCe III ln'e Ease ana holding that the
o",',D - insul,'cichv 10 support felony
1o ,'i,,l leipu, tno Court remarks as TO the
.'.o'nI0 VI o'ie VI ataIc witnesses; rms
Hl'uoss ~ III luii ON inc charge oil horse
nv, NV ~ uueIc" Dun II nc VIII testify
~ 'no 'ule III case III Nhlch inc de-
i'uu"l. - "llheSs against hlm upon the
W u5a'iol ior inc h"fse-thelt ne accepts,
49,, 49,, 80, 0g' @uu Veh'ues nc mas been on
'o.., go p'i"lv "uI saiu hothlhg OF the
p"eie. prIue' NOW we would ask will an
noi''. 'lluI' give cfGdchcc 10 such wit
io's' nus surrounded should citizen
We Inv ctou upon l'e testimony oil such
n "ItH''Nl WIN justice or public policy
DC HuuserE'I ny q conviction obtained
upon evidence from such sourceY
0hould the evidence OF such q witness be
used 20 strengthen other facts, not sum
cleht within themselves, SO us to secure
coh'iGuon' We think not. We do think
tlh' lhe state must be hard pre- sod, in
uyeu' 90 cohdcscend To use the evidence
OIL Such witness. Reversed and re.
iNanued' opinion 10y Hurt j..
leAaa Pacihc liy Co. ys. r. NJ.
EryaN appeal from Van Iandt In nm
ACTON to recover damages for loss occa-
stoned py a IRE 'sct out by passing
engine, under the decisions of this state,
when II was shown that the property was
from snorG. nmi,t t"I' , uu lre occurred