Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-01-10

/ Held. that his confession, under the
/ rule cited, was properly admitted In
/ evidence on behalf Of the state.
.. In polling the jury after verdict
/ the defendant Is entitled to no more
| than q cat, g Tical answer from each
| juror TO the question; rs that your
/ verdictT The accused In this case
was charged as principal The YER
diet, sfiifmed by each juror on being
| polled, found him 'Puilty of murder
in the first degree as charged In the In
dictment The defense proposed TO
ask each Juror II he intended to find
the accused guilty az principal or as
an sccomplice. Held, that the court
properly refused to permit such exam
inalion
4. Article 02l Of the c. c. p. enumer.
ates the onlS grounds upon which
challenge to the array Of jurors eau be
predicated Again the defense did not
exhaust lite pertmptory challenges in
the formation of the jury, and FOR this
additional Teast Il the challenge to the
array was properly overruled,
Evidence which shows an accused
to be guilty as an accomplice to muir
der, will not support his conviction as
a principal.
9 For p distinction between princl.
PMS iuu tAtkAAAt lllAHNN III NiAANNt oNG
Cook g case, ii Tex, CT. App, IS, and
| O'Neal's c1se, Id $50.
/ Charge of the court authorizing
conviction as principal upon proof
that would shew guilt only aud "a an
accOmplice, was error; and failure OF
the court to charge exactly 20 the con-
trary, was likewise error. Reversed
and remanded.
Roberts vs. the State, from Falls
county,. II party IN whose pos
session goods recently stolen are found
fails satisfactorily TO account for his
possession, the presumption OF guilt
arising from recent loss and possession
will warrant a conviction Ineo far as
they announce contrary doctrine
the cases of Hannah w. State, l Tex.
CT App, $50, and Truax VS. State l.
, Tex, Ct App 80, are Overruled.
2. When, in accounting for his pos
session Of recently stolen property,
the accustd gives natural, probable
and satisfactory explanation, such ex-
+, PLANTATION operates 10 relent presump.
: ton OF guilt which attaches to his pos
session, and, I'm order TO entitle the
, state TO conviction the burd en- OF
= proof devolves upon II, to show that
such explanation was false.
8 Bills Of sale are not deemed in
I law TO be unquestionably infallible,
and the state IN cOntToverting their
recitals, or in controverting the ac-
cused's explanation Of his possession
OF recently stolen property, is not con-
, fined to rebuttiug testimony, but when,
! "a In this case, the evidence tends TO
= show an acting together, conspiracy or
!, completely In the taking (Or with a
!. view Of covering up q fraudulent TAX
I ing) between vendor 10 ILL of sale
!, and Hu accused charged with the theft,
! may require the court 10 submit to the
= Jury the bona tides Of the bill of sAle.
u J. Circumstantial evidence, as well
% as direct evidence, Is competent "a
ID prove fraudulent taking. Affirmed
y Cunningham Va. the State, from Tar,
/. rant counIy,-l. Upon the subject OF
+ how far self defense is available u
r slayer who provoked the combat OF
l. produced The occasion which necessi
Is tsted him TO kill bis adversary in his
"a own defense, o general rule Is as fol
/. lows: II he provoked the combat Ol
I produced the occasion, ia
y order to have pretex
d ior killing his adversary or doinl
N MIN great bodily harm, or engaged il
d a combat knowing that 10 might o
Al would result In the death, or some se
ii rious bodily injury which might pro
4 duce the death, OF either party thereto
Is or if by his own wrongful acts lac In
o. tentiOnally, with view thereto
To brought about the necessity of t8kinl
>. life, tho killing will be murder, no mat
ter to what extremity he may hav
It been reduced In the combat.
of =. Tested by the rule cited, tn
.. charge Of the court in this case is errO
n neOus beoaupe II fails TO properly quail
&c ify the word produces because II
a. authorizing the jury 10 determine from
@ the evidence which OF the comhatsnt
ae In the inst instance was ia the wrong
IL does not cOufine the jury 10 the OK
,s- casiOn Of homicide; and because
Nv does not deiiue the nature or quality {
i. the wrongful act, definition essen
.h tial ia view OF the fact that Ill wrong
N. full acts eli elsyeg VIII not depriy
he him Of the right Of selfdefehse.
so 3. This court viii not reverse con
ld viction because OF an erroneous charg
in the absence OF r bill Of exceptions
or proper special charge refused, I'm
or less, looking 20 the whole record, III
ii. courts charge Ia It's entirety and tn
yi- statement " facts 10 becomes oDviou
~ that tine rights Of the accused wef
he probably prtjudIced. In this cage Tia
u interests OF The accused were prOtecte
as by Subsequent portions OF the chsrgt
lis 4. The charge complained of en-
lid braces the following clause, which
Ier objected TO; ~ or by his OW
he wrongful acts produces the necesslt
III of tsking his adversary life In ord'
Vi to save his own. the law will not jus
ed tify him. Held, that the rule thu
ne ANNOUNCED Is correct, Rud has bee
nd sanctioned by the highest judici,
- authority In this state, and that th
es. language In which II ia expressed WI
,at tolerate no other construction tina
io- that the necessity was Intentional
-ge produced. Affirmed.
&c. Murphy ct al. w. the State, frol
Franklin cOunty.-'Qhe bail-bond
ln- this case Is conditioned that the prime
lct pal shall appear 10 answer an inform
lse ton filed by justice OF the peac
nal charging him with an aggravated a