Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-24

II be place specifically named in the
statute. Reversed and dismissed
Bscchus VS.. the State, from Baylor
county. In so far rs the information
charged that the game OF cards was
played at a house for retailing spirit.
Gus liquors. 1t charged an offense
under the statute, such house being
specifically named in the code. In so
far as 1t charged that the playing was
'at place commonly used for the
purpose of gaming" it was insult.
Gent, because to properly charge such
otfense, that should have been the:fur-
ther allegation that the room in which
the playing was done was attached to
u public house. 2. c., art. 1856 There
being two counts, one good and one
bad, the court erred In charging the
jury on both. Reversed and re.
manded.
Miller Il Mccain VS.. the State, from
Collin county. 1t is a well-settled
! general rule that the statements of a
defendant with regard to the charac-
ser of his right to the property of the
theft of which he is charged when
! first found In possession, and his ex-
PLANTATION of his possession of il, If
reasonable and probable, devolves the
onus upon the state to show the falsity
of such explanation This rule was y
part of the law OF this case, and it was
the duty of the trial.court to give it in
charge TO the jury. And 1t Is also APP
parent from the record that this con.
vic.ion was had upon insufficient evil
dence. The Judgment is, therefore,
reversed and the cause remanded.
Johnson VS.. the State, from Wichita
county.-This was conviction for
theft OF property of value less than 500
The punishment awarded by the YER
dict was fine of 81. The punishment
for such cffense is prescribed by arti-
Gle 736 of the penal code. Under the
provisions of that code both fine and
imprisonment or imprisonment alone
may be imposed for such otfense, but
fine alone cannot be. The conviction
is illegal. Reversed aud remanded.
Caldwell VS.. the State, from Collin
county. The conviction in this case
was for the theft of mule, the pun.
ishment assessed being term OF tiv,
years in the penitcntiary. The ques
ton OF guilt turned upon the intention
of the defendant, to appropriate tn,
property when he borrowed it. Tha
question was fully submitted to tn,
Jury by the charge Of the court, anc
being sufficient to sustain their find
| ing ia beyond the revisory power o
this court-no other question arising
upon the record. Affirmed.
: Walker VS.. the State, from Dalla
county. The conviction In this cas-
was for the theft Of hog, the punish
ment imposed being confinement in
the penitentiary for term of on
} month. The proof was clear that tn
defendant shot and killed the hog
: and the defense insisted that sucl
! proof was insufficient to establish
! fraudulent taking, which is an es
sential element OF theft. Held, tina
. the objection is not we'll taken; tina
3 such proof is sufficient to establish
3 fraudulent taking and appropriation
D Affirmed.
8 Davenport vs. the State, from Eli
9 county. The conviction in this cas-
was for an assault. The evidence re
= lied upon by the state was sufficien
d only TO show that the defendant wa
r present at the time the ofiense Wa
@ committed by his co.defendAnt.
g shows no collision with the co-defenC
il ant, and for such reason is insufficient
/ versed and remanded.
w hllNib WIG lDkaACt ltOAiA NoAAA
e county. On motion to dismiss appea
n it is provided "In case the defendar
o pending an appeal in felony cas-
;. shall make his escape from custod,
3 the jurisdiction OF the court OF appea
!, shall no longer attach in the case, an
Is upon such fact being made to appeal
e the court of appeals shall dismiss th
n appeal.n But, held that sentence M
Ie having been passed when the escaT
j, was made, Jurisdiction had not pr
marially attached to the court of a.
& peals, and could not attach until II
case had passed beyond the control
Of the court below. The motion is owe
p ruled.
is Frenchy vs. the State, from Wicl
c. ita county. The conviction in tn
case was for betting at gaming tabl
is The questions raised in the record a
q sailed the sufiiciency of the indie
at ment, the legality of the term Of cou
g. at which the conviction was had, al
le the sufiiciency of the evidence. III
D. indictment enumerated the warrior
lie elements of the offense as that often
re is defined in the statute, and is he
n sufficient. The transcript brings |
is no statement of facts and, in tn
g. court, cannot in the absence Of sue
statement pass upon the evidenc
n The term of court had not expired
~ operation of law. Affirmed.
st James Johnson and Eliza Moor
OF from Wichita county; the convicti'
1t in this case was for fornioation.
be fine of $50 was the penalty q
)y sessed. The Indictment charged Il
ne otienie In the language Of the statut
10 and was sufficient. The charge of d
ne court was correcs abstractly, and ca
y not be otherwise criticised in the a
es sence of statement Of facts. Afiirme
To- Cohen vs.. the State, from Ell
i'd county. The conviction in this ca
be was for violation OF the election lay
he the information charging the app
by liant with selling liquor on Eclectic
OF day. 1t was based on an afiidaN
adj charging the offense in the langus
in of the statute, and the intormAti'
~ | onanaa hxr anthnrffu