Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-09
}02 and 30l HOUSTON ST.,

a final judgment, IN that II does not de-
termine the rights or liabilities Of drien- (
laut, John Burton, end there being
no final judgment below, this court
has no jurisdiction OF The appeal APP
peal dismissed, opinion 10y Hurt, j
Jim Johnson VS.. the State, appeal from
kaufman Whore the record does not
disclose that The defendant gave notice oi
an appeal IN misdemcauor case this
court acquires no jurisdiction, and the
appeal VIII be dismissed, Appeal dis
missed. Per curianI.
G.. y. wilkins vs.. S. g. ward ct
AL, appeal from Hunt. This ease
originated In Justices court, aud,
from the iudgmcntt here rendered.,
the plaintiff appealed. In ihc county
court the Judgment as rccited in the up.
peal bond Is as iulloWsi con this day
came on TO hc heard the defendants mo-
ton to dismiss the appeal herein
lt is considered that suid motion be sus-
tanned " 20 which defendant gave notice
of appeal etc leld,Ethat there was mo-
final Judgment IN the county court, and
this count has no Jurisdiction Appeal
dismissed Per curtain,
Geo. WillHms 49, The State, Upp,al
from Navarro. Evidence Of q confession
bv dciondmt WAS admitted over office
ton The witness who testified 90 thg
confession saia that II was uMde y de.
PENDANT uu Tive day he was arrested but
whether before or after arrest hr could
not state. lhr objection urged ia that
before the confession could be used
IL deguhod upon the state to prove
TINT 10 was made under circumstances
which rendered d admissible Hold, That
the burden rested upon the defendant TO
snow that no the time hc made the confess
sion he was under gfrcst, and not having
shown this, Che confession was admisei-
bile. Whar Or, EN. sec GsY; Roseoc's
Ey., u. %; Gucnl, l5y,, sec, no,
n Wus alleged that the property stolen
was the property of Mallory IS Allen, a
firm composed OF s. ". Mallory and jacob
Allen, ana was taken without The clnsCnt
of the oiraef. 10 would have been correct
to have written owners but the word
owner is correct a8 applied 20 tic ilrm
and was sufficient
THIS court has never held that circum-
siuntial evidence would not support p
verdict when 1t appears that direct evil
dcncc was atlaiuuhle. The cnse Of Miller
vs.. State, rs ch. app. IS, and the cases
there cited. Objection was made to the In
PRODUCTION Of chCums tuntal evidence and
lis admission excepted TO- From the
manner in which these cases are reported
they fail to show the true ruling OF this
court, which Is that circnmrtantlal evil
dence to prove fact could not be re-
sorted to where it appears that there Is
direct evidence In existence, and no sum
citnt reason is shown for It's non-produc-
ton.
That the Information bore different
file number from the complaint Is not
such deficit as can be reached by motion
in arrest. Alilrmed. Opinion by VIII
son, j.
Joe Pratt vs.. the state, appeal from
kaufman. In an indictment Tor injurlng
public building, under Art. Az aud 4lS,
=. c., where the building n one not spec
cidcally named in the statute, an allegation
Is essential That II was II public building
held for public use The building In this
instance was sChoOl.hOuse. Reversed
and remanded. Opinion by Wilson, j.
.Icn Jackson VS.. the STATE, appeal from
Kaufman. The information begins as
followsi sin the name and by The author
ity Of the state Of Texas Nestor Nor
row, county attorney ia and Tor kaufman
county, lthufs hhlN il'NtrA Ni' Nu"ilHNNi
upon he ahdaylt Of W. II Naborr, q
crcdiiable person, herewith fled, pre-
sents to-" etc. Held, that IL sufficiently
appears that the information Is the act Of
the county attorney, and not OF tie come
planning witness. The judgneIt Is az
iirmcd. Per curiam.
Il. l.. walker VS. the State, appeal from
Hopkins Defendant with some other
Young men lnaitendanCe upon o kangaroo
court held at night, went 60 neighbDring
yard aud stole some chlcEena, carried
them 10 a church, cooked and eat them
The chickens were valued at sixty cents,
and The name Of the owner WAS y. r. sen.
Judgment OF conviction and punishment
BY one hour in JAN and 81 fine,
The state over objection proved
by one johnson that the accom-
plice witness had told him 10 the absence
Of defendant ali about tho theft and he
part defendant took in IT, Held, that ns
The witness Johnson hd previously tes-
tiled thar he told defendant that be- ought
10 have gone home and bee would not haze
gotten into the trouble, and the deicud-
ant responded, eyes that's what
ought to have donc,u the evidence OBJ
iccted 10 was admissible. Affirmed. Per
curiam.
supreme Court.