The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-10-31
RICHER ooUErr-vYLEn TpR,I.
COURT or APPEALS,

COURT OF APPEALS,
Ex pasteJamss p. Lynn. Wilson, /.
Whiis the court Of appeals, or tao
Judges, have Jurisdiction or power to
Issue The wrie of habses corpus ia 2
misdemsGaor case, yet, SIS thelaw pro-
vides that in such oaSaa tho rorson ia
custody may applyto tbs county jsdge
or his county, or II there be no such
Judge; this court will refuse
tue writ, unless the party
applying therefor show good oxcusa
why such mp oiication was not made,
40 provided la Art lS9, G. O. p. II is
no excuse tina: the applicant all ege
that the county judge is so prQiud iced
sgainsthim IS that 90 duea not oalievo
that no can obtain justice. Writ of
habeaa corpus refused.
doom Arto VS.. the state, from Gal
weston county. Wilson, j. 1t Is a re-
vorslhle error for the courI, wnsn CIV
lag in charge the law OF self-deienss,
to omis to iasttuct tho jGry that tho
ueiandant, II unla riully 81
tackled by tha deceased, was
not bound 10 retreat in
order to avoid tho necessity of killing
his RssailRnt, The right
ofsoif.daienSe docs not depend uoon
whether or nos the p0rson MS
seiled sets through terror IN
killing his GgsailGnt, = $
| the defendant, intending tolkill the
deceased, entered tho houss nf de-
ceased, aud provoked tho difficulty
which necossi.afed the killing, he can
net claim that tho killlng was done In
seil-defense, H., hoH over, the dareud-
ant, being , llGa9 treSp ssscr upon the
premisesOf deceased, provoked tho 90
casion which resplt8d in the bamicldp,
without any intent to Bill the de-
ceased or do him any serious bodily
harm, and without any intent to do OK
commit any felony. In such case be
would NOT be wholly deprlYeG Of tno
right o! self-delense, but such rlght
would operate TO re3use the hOmicide
TO man%laughisr. Reveraea and re.
manded.
Max, NUM- asheimer et al. Va, w. j,
Allen ct a., from Bowie county.
White, r. j. The suilic9nsy or Insult
ficiency q the uotery's certificate Of
profess 30 fix tha liability of tho en-
dorser8 on 9 negotiable note Is q ques-
ton OF law to DO determined by tho
court, AMI no. By lhe jury. Reversed
and reASnded.
Er-Psrl0 Benton Kramer, from
Young couaty. Wilson !, Tho Illegal
ity or validity Of loeal.optiOn elDe.
ton may be inquired into in q ha-
bebs corpus proceeding nv r.
person who Is held for yloati OF such
lo0al-Opi0n law, Ii tho election was
M "a
tho requirements Of tns law, Ench cleo.
ton Is void and not merely voidable.
Tho statute requires that the clerk
shall post, or cause TO be posted, at
less5 FIVE copies OF the order for cleo
ton az different public places in the
county, for AZ less5 % dGys prior 10 tho
day O' election. II this rec uiremeut was
not co applied with, tho election Ia V0tJ,
Applicant discharged.
Mike inland ". the State, from Nue.
oos county. White, p.j. When insult
Ing words or conduct of tho person
killed towards femalo relation OF tho
party gully OF the homicide il the nd-
tqnate Cause relied on TO reduce the
killing from murder to tho grade of
meuslaughter, it ~ erroneous 10 charge
tnht "the prOvoo stion musb arise Ut
tho time Of tho commission of tho
ohanse, Srd that the passion must
not be the result OF y formor proyOcS-
ton" The cause Ia sufficient, IL the
KILLING occurs 80 soon after the nan.
penins OF such insulting words or con-
duct, as the party killing may meet
the person killed after having been ill.,
formed OF such insulrs,n Such provo.
cation may, ana generally does,
sriso before tho killing, and
the passion is ordinarily, In
fact, the result OF q former provo
Indictment did not show tsat IL WA
presented in tho district court, caunot
DO raised for the frat time in arrest OF
Judgment. Reversed and remauded.
Ike Phillips VI. the State, from Con-
zales county. White, n. |. When a
witness for the Ssato, In his direct ex-
animation, states what Questions he
assed the defendant at tae time he
purchased tho stolen auina from de-
londant, the defendant Is entitled to
tue evidence OF witness NJ
to the answers that he
made. ALEC on the ground
that such evidence was admissible as
original evidence ~ apart OF the res
gestal and as explanation o! tho pos
session OF recently stolen property
A Witness whose veracity
IL directly assaled,or whose credit has
been attacked, by showing that he has
made contradictory staLeMants 10
his evidence on tho trial,
may be sustnines by proof OF his gsn-
erai good character for truth aud Vor-
arlty In tue nsighbDrh0Od where no re-
SIDES ana H. known, = The
defend mt Ia not required TO except 10
the cnurRo Of tho court az soon as IL IL
read 10 the inry, but no may wait
until tho jury have LEI
| tho box and tho cOurg room. e
II the dsfepsout did not participate In
the original taxing OF the stolen prop
orty ths "good isitn" or "bsd faith",of
subsequent purchase OF the sam
ny him can have nothing 20
do with his guilt When tho
paety Is oonspirlug and participating
ia tho Original taking, aud seeks sh1l
ter under q hillotsals, the "sood
ialth" OF such purchssom9y then be-
como n question ior lhe JUICY. r..
verscd nnu romaud0d.
Lna Walker vs.. tho State, from
Marion couuiy. White, y !. Ths
copy Of the bill OF Indictment seryes
upon tho dolouian. IL not Insufficient
because ~ does hOt have endorsed on IL
tao names Of t!h0 witnesses upon
whose testimony T. was fouut. -
In regard 10
the persona TO whom o6mnuui.
cgtlone must have bpen inside by TIC
defendant, Ia order to bs protected az
privileged communications, thoy must
have besn made 10 tho counsel, nttur-
ney or solicitor, su,iuK at tho Tina -
legal advisor. The privilege does NOT
extend tD third persons, present AZ The
conference between attorney and cii-
ent,. although mamb0rs of tho attof.
ney'e family,
-