Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-04

facta and circumstances which were
proved 10 be true, and which conduced 70
establish his guilt. The bludgcon with
which tho homicide was committed WAS
discovered alone through the Information
given by defendant, that ie, he described
II, told where II was and went tC the
place where he said u was. found and
produced u. This OF Itself alone was
sufficient corroboratlon 70 render his con
fcssion admissible. g. O., p. 100. The
court correctly refused 10 charge that the
dciendant's confession IL 10 DC received
with caution, such charge would be
upon the weight of evidence, and there
fore erroneous.
The reading of books 10 the jury Is a
matter within the discretion Of the trial
court, ard this discretion will not be re.
yiscd ON appeal except In clear case OF
lubuso. Affirmed Opinion by Wilson, j.
II. j. Woodwork W.. the State, appeal
! from Bnrcson The defendant was In
dcted for consplrlng with Hunt and
Withers 10 commit burglary. twas con.
cluGycly shown 10y the evidence that
Withers did not enter into the conspiracy,
Hunt testified that defendant and himsoll
made positive agreement 20 commit tho
crime. That he (Ilunt) had no intention
OF doing H., but his sole purpose was 10
entrap the defendant. II Is contended
shat rs the evidence did not show a
conspiracy between defendant and both
Wiihcrs and Hunt, that the prosecution
must fail, as there TX material yarlnncc
IN tho allegation and proof Held, that
the point j. not well take proof OF a
conspiracy between defendant aud one OF
the parties named In the indictment was
sufficient.
But The agreement between Hunt and
defendant as shown by the evidence, did
not constitute such a union OF their
minds, such 4 concurrence OF purpose In.
tentlon and determination o. the law con.
templates In defining conspiracy.
Hunts assault was lcignGd, not real, and
defendant alone had the intention TO
commit the offensc. Bish, Or. Low,
5, 1890. Reversed and rcmandod
Opinion by Wilson, j.
Sam Watson W.. The State, appeal from
Brahonu, Defendant was convicted IN
iustic@s court Of nisdcmeanor aud APP
pcaled TO che county court. The county
court on motion dismissed his appeal
from defective bond. Held, that the CON
dltion OF the bond being for the "persoDal
appearance" Of the defendant before the
county court, the bond WIS moro oncrous
than required by law aud the court dld
not err IN 80 holding and disinssing the
apQonl Affirmed .aOpnion by Wilson, j,
II. W. Wallace vs. the State, appeal
from Cherokee. Defendant and his CO.
defendants wcte escaped convicts and
deceased was guard and was killed In
trying to effect their capture Upon the
an t.s.lT a.
Deceased, pursuing ana attempting 20
capture the cOnvlcis was In The discharge
OF his duty as an officer. The law aud
his oath required OF him prompt
compliance with this duty His pursuit
and attempt 90 capture them was there
fore lawful. II was In no sense "an uu.
lawful aud violent attack" upon the con-
vletJ II the guard had killed one or
more OF them he would not have com
mittcd murder lie was making use OF
no moro force than was necessary TO nf.
icct their capture, and the trailing them
with dogs was not unlawful or improper;
ana was the usual means resortcd TO I'm
such cases. The fact that the slayers
were conylcts, and Killed the guard In nm
attempt TO secure their liberty, IN no de.
gree excuses, IustitieS or cXtenuates the
crime. Affirmed. Opinion by Wilson, j.
+. y McDodo w. Waller County, APP
peal from Waller.
Suit by McDode against the county for
hire OF guards for the county inIl Held,
that the sheriff only can employ guards
with the approval OF the commissioners
court or In case Of emergency with the
approval Of the county judge. Beyond
this qualified power he can crcntc no liza
hlllty against the county, except In case
there Is no jail In the county. The evi.
denco showing that tho hiring was with.
out The approval OF either the commits
sloners' court or county Judge, the plain
tlh showed no cause OF action Another
defect IN the PLAINTIFFS case was that the
claim had never been presented TO and
rejected by the commissioners court.
Affirmed, Opinion by Willson,.t