Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-03-21


chastity, wherein the accuser charges
her with specific acts and conduct, the
rule OF evidence, limits the defensive
proof TO such specific acts and conduct.
But II, IA In this case, the imputatinn
be general, a. that the lmpuuged fe-
male lis a whore or 'is a id
WHORE the rule Il different. and
under our statute IP. g, Art. 04Gl the
accused would be entitled to prove any
succession ofsp,ci acts going to estab.
llsh the truth, or facts from which the
jury would he warranted In finding
the imputation true.
9. A whore Ia defined 10 be "a wo-
man who practices unlawful sexual
commercs with men, especially one
who does II for hire That woman
Is q whore may be proved by her gem
ersl reputation, or by proof that she
prsctlced unlawful sexual intercourse
with men. III the latter mode be
adopted, II can be effected by showing
the successive individual instances she
practiced such commerce, leaving the
jury TO determine therefrom whether
or not she is whore. Every unlaw-
full act OF sexual commerce would tend
to establish the truth OF the charge
and would be competent evidence
. Proof that prior TO her marriage
with her husband, the impuDged 70.
male lived with him In adultery Is not
competent TO establish her character
as a whore, and was properly excluded.
But the charge being that the prosecu-
trix Is mot aVos) whore, II was error to
exclude proof that she praoticed unlsw-
full sexual commerce with other men
| than her husband.
L. Charge OF the court instructed
the Jury that "if they believe the de.
PENDANT not guilty they will sequt
him." Such charge was error because
equivalent 10 an instruction that the
jury should convict unless they be-
lieyed the defendant To be innocent.
Reversed and remanded.
Vaughn We the State, from Johnson
county Charge OF the court should
comprehend the law Of ciroumstantlal
evidence when the state relies solely
upon That character OF evidence for a
! conviction.
.. Evidence that the defendants
first connection with the stolen prop.
erty was subsequent 10 the taking,
and that he purchased IL whether In
good or bad faith, knowing or not
knowing the owner, may be sufficient
| w tulpuIt ~ CoilfAOlluh loI huOWlukiy
receiving stolen property, but will not
support conviction for theft Charge,
which, In effect, authorized N convic-
ton for theft on such proof, was error,
but should have been excepted 10.
Reversed and remanded.
johnson VS. the ate, from Tarrsnt
county. l. fla criminal Intention lie OF
the essence OF the offense charged, the
accused may. M relevant 10 the ques.
ton OF his guilt or innocence, put in
issue aud prove his general character
In that respect whiuh Is impugped by
the accusation But the evidence
should be restricted 10 the trial OF
character which is In Issue that Is, II
ought to have some analogy and refer.
encs To the nature of the charge. The
extent of the issue presented by the
defendant In this case was that his rep
utation WAS good as ''peaceable ne.
gro, who was polite to white people,
especially ladie,, y aud II was error 10
permit the state 10 90 further, and
prove his reputation Ms u "law-abidine
! man"
.. When the main charge OF tn,
! court embraces all OF the law upon
an Issue involved In the trial, tbs
, court IL not required To give additional
, special instructions on the Same sub
ject
Special charge was requested s'
follow: III the jury believe from the
evidence that the witness, M Is W..
was, at the time OF the assault, from
sickness, nervousness or other cause,
In such mental condition that heI
faculties were impair' d, and she bt.
lieved the defendant was making an
ass ult upon her, when In point OF fact
defendant nor any one else WAS present,
and said witness WAS laboring under
an hnlluciBation as 10 the presence OF
the defendant. they will find the de.
fendsnt not guilty. Held, obnoxious
because upon the weight OF evidence
and therefore properly overruled. The
evidence was insufficient to support
the conviction. Reversed and re-
manded
Gibson Va the State, from Chcrok es
county. Indictment In this case,
charging an assault 10 rape, describes
the assaulted party as q female and
alleges that the assault was made
"without her consent and against bel
will.n In his objection, the accuse
insisted that the lndl ctmeni, TO bs
sufficient, should hsve described the
hbShulled party US WohihH VIZ ~
contradistincl lon thereto, that she wal
"a female under the age 81 ten years.
Held, that the Indictment Is Insult
Client TO charge an assault 70 rape .
female under the age of ten years. But
when applied TO human being. ,h'
word female Ia synonymous, inter
! changeable with, equivalent TO, npc
| means "a woman Wherefore the
] objection Is not well takon.
3 9 After laying time and plan, tbs
, individual charged that the accused
with force, thresis and FRAUD
Z in and upon one Mary j.
! alias Mary q, a female, then
. aud there being, unlR~fuily rns
/ felonlously an assault did mabe, Will
D the unlawful and felonious intent, ben
q and there of him. the said John Glib
4 son. without he consent and against ~
tpiu Of her, the said NJ J allan NJ. q.
/ u carnally know and ravisn, eto
' Held, that the indictment II good
:. The words "Without he consent an
. dQainR ne ViH DIV are turpinssgs
. aud the remMning allegations sui
/ fieiently charge the offsnsa Tex.