Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-01

the absent witnesses, and the same ia
made a ground OF the motion FOR new
TRIAL, the testimony as set out In the
application should be considered In
connection with the evidence adduced
on the trial, and, IL found 10 be ma.
terial and probably true, the new trial
should be granted. "When the opinion
toi witness) Is q mere shorthand
rendering OF the facts, then the opin.
Ion can be. given, subject 10 cross
examination as to the facts on which
II was based.n VIII. Or. Ev. Sec. ass
see also Id. 459 and G. Tex. CT. App.
400 III was not error to permit wit
ness to testify that when the defendant
returned TO q place, where a
snort time before he was seen, he an.
peared excited. Objections to the
charge are not well taken. A new
trial should have been awarded on the
application for continuance. Reversed
and remanded.
Wilson VS.. the State, from Conan
che county, Court adjourned on Sep
tem0er ~ The statement of facts, an
der ten days allowed, was filed Sep
tember 30. SIN the computation Of
time from an act done, the das on
which the act is done will be excluded
Whenever such exclusion will prevent
an es'oppel or save forfeiture.u w.
d w. Con. r., zee 1888. "The
rule Is settled that in the com.
putsti0n oftime the day upon which
the act IS done from which time IA TO
be computed ordinarily must be ex-
cluded from the court and this rule
applies to the time within which
appeal bonds must be given. - I'd. 1915.
me statement OF facts WAS filed with
IN ten days" 1t was an issue of fact
III This case, whether or not the brace
taken from the shop was so taken for
mere temporary or for permanent
appropriation. This issue was not
submitted in the charge. No excep-
ton or special charge was asked on
the subject, and the question was first
raised on motion for new triad. The
omission to submit this Issue was
error, under the rule. II the matter
was part OF the law made necessary by
the facts TO be given in charge, then
the omission to charge upon that
phase OF case would be reversible error,
even though the charge was not ex.
cepted to, nor special charge asked, be-
cause, In felony cases, the charge must
distinctly set forth the law applicable
to the case whether asked
or not" Reversed and remanded.
Bledsoe VS. the State, from Wilson
county. Article sos of the c. G. O.
requires that before an appeal will be
to this court ia misdemeanor case
there shall be entered a final judgment
directing that 9 "capias forth with
issue, commanding the sheriff TO ar
rect the defendant and commit him TO
Jail, until such fine and costs are paid. -
Che transcript In this case brings up
no such final Judgment, and under re-
peated decisions Of this court, the
states motion TO diemiss the appeal Is
sustained. Appeal dismissed.
Greene VIZ. the State, from Coleman
county. The indictment in this case
charged the appellant with the theft
ola COW, and the punishment assessed
by verdict of conviction was term
OF two years In the penitentiary. The
principal questions arise upon the suf.
ficiency of the Indictment and the
charge OF the court, which in all re-
spects (the latter in the absence of eX-
ceptioD) are found upon inspection TO
be sufficient, and the action of the
court In refusing q continuance. No
sufficient diligence in the effort to
secure the witnesses Ia made manifest
by the record. and the continuance
was properly refused. Affirmed.
Henson va. the state, from Bexar
county. A life term in the peniten.
tiary was assessed against the appel
liant upon conviction for infanticide,
A ncl ~ IN
procure the attendance of certain ab.
sent witnesses. Not only does this
application fail TO show the exercise
OF due diligence in the attempt u
secure the witnesses, but, Viewed in
the light OF the evidence adduced on
the trial. the testimony they were ex'
pected 10 give WAS not probably true
The charge Of the court, the evidence
and the indictment were all sufficient
Affirmed.