The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-06-18
jim HUNNICUTT'S CASE,
A NEW TRIAL is GRANTED HIM
Joe Polser u Competent Witness-The
Courts Errors specified-AmOng
them Allowing Jurors to
Read Certain Papers.

AUSTIN. June II. - Special. - The
Court of Appeals delivered very i'm
portant opinion to-day in the Hunni-
cut case, from Dallas, which was
conviction for murder in the first de-
gree. The court held as follows:
First-The dying declarations OF de-
ceased were admissible.
Second-The governor had the au-
thority to issue pardon, though the
party may have eXpatiated his crime
by serving out full term in the penl-
Tertiary.
Third-A full pardon, after the pris-
oner has served his end OF term in
the penitentiary, has the same effect
as would have had a pardon granted
him during his term of imprisonment
and before its completion, and such
pardon granted him during his term
of imprisonment and before its COM
pletion, and such pardon restore fully
his competency as witness.
Fourtn-The delivery and accept
ance of pardon by prisoner is suf-
ficjently shown when the witness has
testified on previous trial by virtue
of such pardon, even though the par
don has never been delivered to the
prisoner in person.
Fifth-When existence and contents
can not be made by parole, but must
be made by eXemplification or certi-
| fed copy from the register OF the gov
ernor's official acts, required by law
to be kept by the Secretary OF State,
unless it be made sufficiently to ap
pear that the register does not contain
q record Of the pardon. In any event
an exemplification of the register
| zI, In 10 M n oh
thing concerning the pardon.
Sixth--In the absence OF fraud a
pardon will be good, though 1t states
| the date of the conviction incor-
rectly, if it was intended to cover, and
does cover, the particular otfense.
Seventh-As far as the objection TO
the courts asking q witness himself
rs to whether he had ever been con-
fined in the penitentiary more than
once is concerned Article 722, Criminal
Code of Procedure, fully auth orizes
such an examination.
Eighth-The court erred in not Civ
ing charge to the jury with the law
applicable as partioops criminis,as this
was the evidence only known to show
that the prosecuting witness only en-
deayOred to shield the defendant after
the killing by assuming to be the
guilty party himself, thereby enabling
defendant to escape arrest or trial fOl
the offense.
Ninth-The court erred in not charg
ing the law as to abb, there being eyi
dence introduced by the defendant Il
establish the same as defense.
Tenth--The evidence not bein
wholly circumsJantial the court wa;
not bound TO give the law in charge
concerning such evidence.
Eleverth--The court disapprOves OF
the argument of the county attorney
Ia taking the witnesses and going be
yond tho record, but does not decide
as to whether or not it is reversible
errors.
| I2Twelfth--It is improper for the cour
20 permit jurors, during trial, to reat
newspapers containing reports of thu
evidence excluded as we'll as that ad
mitted, and the court erred in over
ruling the motion for new trial baseC
on this action as ground therefor.
Judge White delivered tho opinion
which js one Of the best ever delivered
from the bench, and does a grea
credit to that able jurist.