Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-15
ia W IsoF &c RARR.

The state then introduced one Williams,
who testified that Mexican came 10 his
store with some horses, that defendant
and the Mexican after some talk came Il
him, aud defendant asked him e
write him q bill OF sale for a gray
horse. Williams said that he did
not have time but be would witness foi
him which would do as we'll The de.
PENDANT then gave the Mexican has
horse for the gray horse and that this
gray horse IL the one alleged
to be stolen. Held, that without the
testimony OF Williams the state estab-
fishes an explanation of defendants pos
session, which II true exoneratas him from
guilt There is no pretense that tho state
was surprised, norEls there any suspicion
cast upon the testimony and the yer.
diet of guilty was not warranted Re.
yersed and remanded. Opinion by 1urt,J.
Pablo Malta VIZ. the State, appeal from
Webb. Objection TO an Indictment on
the ground that one member OF the grand
jury which presented the bill could not
read or write can not be ayallcd OF by
plea in abatement. Such an objection
can only be made by exception or chal-
lenge TO the grand Juror at It's orgrniza-
firmed. Per curtain.
l.. v. Quincy VS.. the STATE, appeal from
Lee. At a former day this appeal was
dismissed for want OF recogplzance suf-
fcient In law. A motion Is made TO rein
state on the ground that proper rccog-
nigance was taken In court quo. The
motion Is insufficient In not stating that
a proper recognizance was entered Of
.rA 4al bal raa al
q misdemeanor Is not returnablc to this
branch and for this season, also the mo.
ton is refused. Per curtain.
w. L. Davis VS.. the State, appeal from
Grimes The indictment charges that
the defendant, OF his malice aforethought,
made an assault on - with intent 10
the manner In which or the means with
which the assault was committed. The
defendant was convicted Of an aggravated
assault. Exceptions aud motion In ar.
rest were oYerrulcd, tbs grounds Of both
being that the acts constituting the az.
sauit, the manner and means OF It's com.
mission were not alleged. Held, that a
long line Of decisions In this
state, as well as elementary au-
thorities sustain the sniilclency OF
/ lit iuulttlliiHb ADt aHHfhhe WIN ihN~ht
10 murder, and under the provisions Of
articles 7l4-7lS, G., G.. ~, It is held that
conviction for aggravated assault may
be had under an indictment charging In
the usual form an assault with intent to
commit murder. Jones ys. State, S6
Tex, 645; Bittick VS.. State, 40 Tex,
Ill7; Peterson VS.. State, ~ CT. App, 900
Such being the established doctrine
prior 10 the adoption Of the present CON
stitution, II cannot be SAID that
the pro Visions OF the statute OF
the decisions giving them efeci
are IN conflict with the consti.
tuition; because the same were the recOg
nized law OF the land when the constitu
ton was adopted. Affirmed. Opinion
by Wilson, j.
Burrcll Bond VS.. the State, appeal from
Grnyson. A material change was Inad'
Ia the law OF robbery by the revised cod
as adopted IN 1879. Before that the crime
could DO committed In either Of 1--WE
modes, 1. e., by assault or violence
But 10 either mode the assault or the yio
lence must be accompanied by the tset'o