Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-01-06
gRT OF APPEALS.
tfs Of the Decisions of the Court
Appeals at its Recent Sitting
in Tyler,
Up From the Full and Official Re.
be of the Rulings and Opinions
Rendered,

|iSn Hard W. the State, from Van
IA L county.-In this case, as in that
|aEi1 "a pillows next, It is held; That
1.on The information, as the official
\ faAl The state's attorney, charges d.
20 3 ana explicitly that the accused
aev led the otiense, IL ia sufficient,
h on5neb il states, parenthetically, 'as
'ls.i Rn BIZ the complaint Off A or b,
ductrine is that the words in pa
--hesis, not being essential to or
|Hrx riptive of the ofiense, may be
led as surplusage. Allegation in
hD' Information that the instrument
ny. which the ofiense was committed
bit deadly weapon, must be sus-
aanaed by the proof, or a conviction
way not stand. Reversed and re-
idd lded
hs.fafren vs. the State, from Van
IN. ,dr county.--Lost property, like
rns other, may be the subject of theft,
tthc Intent to steal the property is
--e. gist Of the oflense, and such intent
u-,sl exist &C the very TINE OF the TAX
heA J that intent did not exist at the
e of the taking, no subsequent
luuient taking will render the pre-
---ls liking felonious. Such was In
yorct, the special charge requested by
appellant. The trial-court refused
SEQ special charge, and charged on the
Meet as follows: If one find
Hon property, and at the time OF find
ng or Immediately thereafter, forms
lis mind AN intent to defraud the
ncr Oh deprive him OF the value Of
same, and to appropriate the same
alia own use and benefit, he cannot
Tm that the taking was not wrong
|at Held, that the special chargelre-
.6ied announced the law on the sub.
III :, and should have been given aud
oo1 j. the charge ss given was erroneous
ause IL did not contine the frRudu-
Inv intent TO the very time of the TAX
81. but extended IL to time immedl-
~ afterwards. Reversed and re-
|fmnoed.
y NRlters VS.. the State, from Collin
N.Y. When an application for a
RMtluuance disciOses the exercise Of
/ " diligence in the effort to secure the
sence Of absent witnesses, and it
Sm tbar shows atiirmatively that the
sVrired testimony is of material char
Ell the cOntinuancesh should be award
|ndr HIS flight Immediately after the
lni eyed theft was q principal inculpa-
= fact against the defendant, and
,,s. showing diligence, asked contin-
ice % secure the presence Of wit
IVA SEES to explain his alleged flight
ss2h violence being shown TO be ma
E.L aai 70 his defense, the appellant
uld have been awarded the contin-
In ace. The proof showed that the
sgeasecutrix handed the appellant a
g niydollar bill to change; that he,
tebding, after examining his funds,
EaEs TO have the requisite amount ia
ssllnge, returned to the prOsecutrix "A
IA -dollar bill instead ofthe tweuty-dol-
g4bili, which fact the prosecutrix did
sole. discover until after the appellants
-arture. Under this state of proof
4 cilanp8 counsel insist that only
+ aeteen dollars were stolen aud that,
|hsAng event. the appellant can only
|sss. copgicted of a misdemeanor. But
" q that while the argument Is spe-
|nh1s u Is not sound. The indictment
irged the theft of the twenty
~ Jar bill, and If the evidence shows
deY cJiense at all IL shows a felony,
1use II shows that the prosecutriX
owl the twenty.dollar bill, and that
ma appellant took the twenty-dollar
sa &. Reversed and remanded.
kooefis VS.. the State from Kauf-
IN connty.-The effect of the act Of
special session Of the 18th legisla-
+ le, describing the punishment for
e 2 wanton and wilful cutting, injur-
Or Destroying the fence of another,
srsnot 70 repeal article 6S4 Of the penal
ie additional elements enter into
|IsI. composition Of the ofiense de-
|npnnced by the act passed at the spe-
Et session of the 18th legislature
~ even were 1t true that the otfenses
1ned in the two acts are the same,
cd tue penalty attached to article 6S4
b. Che penal code was altered by the
o. the said special session, such fact
- 1ulu not work repeal OF said article
s iheFule applicable being that pre-
ihed BY article 10 of the penal code.
g said act of the special session took
oct on February @. 1884, and was in
4 1ee when the information in the
4e WAS filed, but not when the OF.
1hse Is alleged to have been commit
D.. affirmed
Az obnson VS.. State, from Hunt coun-
Il Information charging q INSIDE
sslafiQf must show on is lace that the
<4ssfee is made by the states prOsecut-
~ 'f|'@rtAf eA4A AiNL lEhNt II 4utaLlOu-
e whether such charge was made by
aen qlncer or by the complainant who
.,skqe the oath IN writing npon which
e lnformati1n was based. It is
ssaolly unnecessary that the informa-
an shonld state that 1t Is founded
on complaint, IN writing, under
9Th, OK to make any mention what
+ FER Of Che oath. The law requires no
ore than that the oath shall be fled
1ith the information. Reversed aud
naNdtd.
YYhile VS.. the State, from Maverick
upfy charge OF the court IN theft
nse was as follows: ''lf part OF the
Sfged stolen property was found and
Raenfiiied as such, the theft Of the re.
aInder may be inferred from that
!, ifall Of the property Ia shown 10
sasFe beer stolen at the same time and
4ee Held, error, as being a charge
|ol9n ahe weight Of evidence, and
4 ereiore an invasion Of the exclusive
Z i4slnce OF the Jury, who alone, with
T g ifetcial Interference by charge or
= 1tfn lse, are authorized to draw in-
anuts from the evidence. Held.