The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-04-29

IL. Pauline VS.. the State, from Coleman
county; submitted on briefs Cor boti
parties.
Calvin Tolston vs.. the State, from Wal
Ter county; submitted on brief fol-
the State.
Jim Herald VS.. the State, from Waller
county. Motion for certiorari granted.
Alex. Lewis VS.. the State from Colora
do county; submitted on brief for the
State.
Exparte Marion Myers, from Montgom
cry county; submitted on brief for the
State.
Jeff Mcknight VS.. the State. from
Houston county; submitted on brief for
the State.
Bill Smith vs.. the State. from Harrison
county; submitted on briefs for both par
ties.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Oscar Holman vs.. the State; opinion by
Hurt, j..
T. b. Brumley VS.. the State, from
Hunt county; opinion by White, p. j.
CASES AFFIRMED.
G.. II. Day VS.. the State. from Tarrant
county; opinion by Hurt, j.
July Britt vs.. the State, from Freestone
county; opinion by Hurt, j.
Il. Smith VS.. Hardwicke ct al, from
Grayson county; affirmed on certificate.
Alex Lewis VS.. the State, from Colorado
county; no written opinion.
jeff Wright VS.. the State, from Hous
ton county; no written opinion.
Chas. Epperson VS.. the State, from
Henderson county: submitted on briefs
! for both parties.
Albert Hodge vs.. the State, from Hen
derson county; submitted on briefs for
both parties.
Chas. Eppersou vs.. the State, from Hen
derson county; submitted on briefs for
both parties.
Albert Hodge VS.. the State, from Hen
derson county; motion for certiorari sub
mitted and granted.
Roach VS.. the State, from Hunt
county; submitted on briefs and oral ar
guments for both parties; after which
court adjourned to Wednesday next.
DISTRICT COURT.
Hon. A. s. Walker, Judge; j. H. Robert
son. district attorney; Jas. p. Hart,
clerk.
The trial of the Bracken case was
again taken up yesterday morning, Col.
Pendexter resuming his argument for the
defense. Col. Sneed followed, concluding
the defendants presentation of his case.
District Attorney Robertson concluded
for the state. All the arguments were at
tentiyely listened to by the court, Jury and
bystanders, ind at times the latter paye
vent to their feelings i'll decorOus demon
strations of applause. Under an able
presentation of the law as applicable to
the testimony by Judge Walker the Jury
retired for deliberatiOn about 80 D. M,
and after an absence of perhaps twenty
minutes, returned into court verdict of
mot guilty" Though the verdict had
been generally foreseen from the time the
state finished its theory of the case vet
the friends of the indicted officer crowded
around to congratulate him upon his
happy deliverance.
The following is brief resume of the
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE HOMICIDE:
On the night of the Sth of February
last large Gro yd of negroes had assem-
bled at Dick Rogers saloon in Mason
town. There were men and women, both
sexes drinking heavily, and by their bois-
ferrous conduct disturbing the peace of
the neighborhood. Officer Bracken, hear
ing the noise, proceed thither to put
stop to the unseemly orgies. Arriving
there he received information that Nathan |
Elgin, cOlOred man, was inhumanIy
beating woman. Summonng Clabe
Hawkins, at one time special officer, and
Dick Rogers to his aid, the three repaired
to the house where the beating was being
inflicted. Remaining outside, Officer Brack-
en- sent the two inside who with some
IL 1r,,,r NIgr,,, .Nrl
the fence outside the house, the latter
kicking and plunging violently to free
himself. Bracken endeavored to put |
the nippers on Elgin, but in the
effort was violently knocked down by FL |
gin. He rose, and again approaching the |
frantic man, attempted to secure him. At
this instant a pistol was fired in the crowd |
by whom the evidence does not posi- |
lively show. Bracken then drew his pis- |
tol and fired, the ball entering Elgin's |
side, Telling him to the earth. The wound !
ed man died next morning, and the grand |
jury returned into court bill of indict-
ment charging Bracken with the homicide.
The event of the trial was as before stated |
At the afternoon session of the district |
court the injunction prayed for by the |
state against Charles Goodnight was call
ed up, and on application of the respon-
dent the hearing continued to Wednesday
next, April %.
The State VS.. j. o. Phillips; murder; set
for May2l Special venue of sixty jurors
ordered.
Mrs. Ann Il. Davis VS.. Charles Hurst:
judgment for plaintiff for S3,225.04, with
of attachment lien and deed of
trust
w. j, Montgomery VS.. A. j. Gibson: de-
cree of partition and commissioners APP
pointed to divide land in controversy.
Wygall VS.. the State; continued by con-
sent of plaintiff, defendant not appear
ing.
Casey VS.. Casey; dismissed by plaintiff.
Mary and D.M.Wilson vs.M.M. Hornsby
Ell al; continued by consent.
W. B. Isham VS.. John A. Webb con-
tinued by consent.
The State VS.. j. A. Rhomberg ct all con-
tinued by consent.
Houston d Texas Central Railway COM
pany VS.. j. w. Butman.
Houston q Texas Central Railway com
pany VS.. b. X. Durfee.
Houston i Texas Central Railway COM
pany VS.. S. S. Buckingham.
Houston d Texas Central Railway COM
pany VS.. C. F. Emery.
Houston Texas Genital Railway com
\