Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-03-21
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered at
the Galveston Sitting Of the
Court Of Appeals,
Made Up From the Full and Official Re.
port o. the Rulings and 0pir-
ions Rendered.

cOuulys-l. LuS prosecution was Tor |
perjury committed as a witness In the |
case OF the State vs. johnson, criini. |
nal proceeding in the county court. |
to the indictment COM
planned that II the indictment for
perjury did not allege the venue OF
the ofiense charged in the case against
johnson. The indictment contains
the following language: whereupon
II then and there became and was ma.
terial and necess ry for the due and
proper enforcement Of the penal laws
of the state against the having and
carrying Of firearms into houses where
people are assembled for amusement
to inquire of said Ben Powers as afore.
said whether the said Vince johnson
did h tho couaty'Qf Ben aforesaid
etc. Held, sufficient 10 allege the
venue OF the otfsnse for which Johu-
son was tried, and upon which trial
the perjury Is alleged TO have been
committed.
. The better practice in perjury
cases, when the perjury Is alleged To
have been committed upon the trial of
a criminal cause, Is thatthe indictment
for perjury should not only allege the
jurisdiction OF the trial court over the
criminal ofiense In which the perjury
was committed, but 1t should thow
how, whether by information or In.
dictment, the court acquired such
Jurisdiction. In reason, however, and
under The code Of this state, such ex-
Illcit a legation is not necessary, when
the Indictment does, ~ in this case,
allege In general terms, that the court
had jurisdiction to try the case. Az
flrmtd, and rehe ,ring refused.
Reynolds Va. the state, nom Bell
county. J. A charge of the court was
az follows: "You are further charged
that the state in this case relies upon
circumstantial evidence 10 establish
the alleged fact that defendant and
said A j. Moore acted together as
principle in the alleged taking of said
hogs etc." Held, not to be charge
upon the weight OF evidence; that In
view Of the fact that the evidence re.
ferred to was purely circumstantial, 1t
was proper Introductory statement
to q proper charge on circumstsntial
evidence, and being favorable TO the
accused, was a statement of which he
cannot be heard 10 complain, especially
Ia view of the fact that IL was not
specially excepted TO when given.
. IL Is not error TO refuse a special
charge, the substance OF which IS elm
braced In the general charge.
8. Prosecuting counsel Ia closing argu-
ment asserted that this defendant and
Moore, with whom he IL charged as
principal, stole the hogs and, divided
them" Held, that this statement
was warranted by the evidence, and
was strictly within the rules govern
ing argument.
4. Neither bad spelling nor bad
grammar will vltiate verdict when
It's meaning Is clear. Technical and
unsubstantial objections 10 a verdict
will not be considered in determining
lis sufflciency. The omission of the
letter ''i'' forming the second syllable
of the word "peDitenilsry," will not
lnvali late verdict. Affirmed, and re.
hearing refused.
Fonville VS. the State from Tarrant
county. To constitute the offence Of
forgery, IL IL not essential that the
forged instrument IL true, will actual.
| ly discharge or defeat an obligation,
| 1t will be the subject OF forgery II Il
l. nds to discharge or defeat an obliga-
ton. Failure of the court TO charge
the jury upon question involved In
a trial should be objected TO, or the ac'
cused should seek 10 supply such
omission by requesting "a special
| charge. Otherwise conviction Will
not be disturbed, because OF su'h omis-
sion, unless prejudice 10 the accused IL
made TO appear. Affirmed aud re-
hearing refused
Bell VS.. the State from McI.ennan
county. /. Where the evidence in a
murder case raises the issue Of self
defense, IL becomes the duty OF the
court TO charge all Of the law Of that
issue whether requested or not. IL Ia
a part OF the law # selfdefense under
our code that an assailed party ~ net
bound TO retreat In order TO make good
his right OF self defense, Failure tc
30 charge is reversible error II ex
cepted TO. IL is not reversible error
II not excepted to, and for the first
time questioned on motion for new
trial, unless, under the evidence ad
duced, as in this case, IL Ia calculated
TO prejudice the accused.
9. An accused cannot be considered
to have waived his right TO full and
correct charge upon proper ISSUE IL
the case, because his requested charge
was rot as full as the law required
mr. Is the trial court for sucf
reason exonerated from givint
such full charge. The special charg'
ON selfdefense given at the instAnc'
OF the accused In this ease was correc
80 far as II goes. and was suiii tient q
call such issue 10 the attention Of III,
court, aud exact therefroni a full
charge.
3 In its main charge on the subjec
of intent, the court instructed the juri
In substance that II the evidence rat
isfled their minds beyond a reasonsbi
doubt that the manner In which tn
knife was used evinced an evil or cruz
disposition, or an Intention ON tn
, part Of the defendant TO kill, the.
, should lid him guilty Of murder o
nlapslaughter. according 70 the cir
cumstances Of the case. When on tn
eve If retirement the jury "ss In
7 structed by the states request ~ FOL
n lows: "If The jury believe from the es
1 idence that defendant did cut an
mound deceaaed With a knife, and sal