Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-12

COW did not move out Of her tracks while /
laent was present. The question Is /
WAS there A takInei The defendant did |
hqt ''tShe' the animal himself, but by /
seilng X 70 Hardy upon the pretense that |
u was his, he did procure Hardy,who was |
entirely innocent aud who believed defend. !
AM was the owner, 10 buy and take the |
animal. This was certainly causing |
an01ler 70 be deprived OF his property by |
indirect means and under circumstances |
when Ia contemplation OF the statute |
would make him the principal In the theft,
ana the conviction was right. The court
says 'this decision IN nolwise conflicts
with the decision in Hardeman's case. ~
ct app. 207, because In that case there
was no taking Of any character. The case
OF Late VS.. state, 20 CT. app. $50 states
different doctrine and that case Is over
ruled.N Affirmed. Opinion by Whit0. Z. j.
Caroline Harris vs.. State. appeal from
Galveston. l.is objected that the value
81 the stolen property was not proved.
The indictment charged the value OF each
article separately, the tot8l value being
about fifty dollars Mrs. Morris testified
'The values are about as alleged amount
Ing TO more than twenty dollars.n Now
II Is true the indictment was not formally
read IN evidence, nor was this necessary.
II was q record in the case and for an
purposes could be referred to and con.
sidered the same as II Il had been in evil
dence. Rehearlng refused. Opinion hy
| Wilson, j.
Jim Kerrigan VS., State, appeal from
Tarrant. Thatthe statement ~ facts WIS
opposed and certified by the trial Judge
alter 1t had been filed by clerk, was a mere
| irregularity and the court wall consider
/ the same.
The Judge certihes that the statement is
ga correct statementof the facts proved -
This is equivalent to certifying that it is a
correct statement Of cali" the facts
proved. 10 Tex. 40; 4G Tex, 30.
Affirmed Opinion by Wilson, j,
). +. Peterson VS.. State, appeal from
Bosque. An assault becomes aggravated
when the person committing the 0ffense
! goes into the house Of private family,
and is there guilty Of en- assault and bat
terry. lie must 20 "inton the house or be
in the house, and he must not only com
nit an assault, but "batteryn also,
The Indictment charged that the assault
was committed "atn the house, and
failed TO charge that battery was com
mitted. Such an indictment did not war.
rant conviction for aggravated assault
Reversed and romsnded. Opinion by
| Wilson,.
Fai.e4vn ct al. vs.. State, appeal from
J Milan The allegation in the scirC
: iacias was that the bond was executed OF
the lstof February. The court admitted II
evidence over objection a bond dated lGtl
} of December but approved by the sheriff
} LIST of February. In the case of Holt vs.
| 81 81 ~ MAJ h.al an IA
date Of the signature, and not the date o
approval, was the true date OF the bond
: In this case the variance in the allegation
: and proof was fatal, Reversed and re
: manded. Opinion by Hurt, j.
e Henry Tickle vs.. State, appeal irou
Ellis This is an appeal from convic
e tion for murder in the first with sentenc
a for life. An order was made allowing te
$ days after adjournment In which to I'll
y the statement OF facts. The Statement
n found in the transcript appears by th
o Endorsements to nave been 'flled' by th
e clerk within the ten days, but 1t was no
y approved or certified 10 by the trial judg
d until after the ten days had expired Tn
s statement cannot be considered, In tn
e absence OF such statement Of facts tina
e can be considered there are no errors al
II parent. Affirmed. Per curtain.
d Josh Conley VS.. State, appeal frol
e Travis The criminatiye fact in eyidenc
G. was that the saddle, bride and blanket a
e legged TO have been stolen were found In tl
& loft OF shcd which was rented and use
1t by defendant. The articles were covere
l. with fodder which belonged to defcndan
y over objection the state was permitted
n prove that at the same time some harnes
vas found IN the fodder, and that thel
s. was in the lot TO the stable horse hitche
J. which was afterwards claimed by on
.e Boyce. This evidence was admissible
n there being nothing in the evidence
o connect in any way this horse with u
articles named In the indictment. Ev
l. deuce showing other crimes should nev'
a be received, unless clearly admissible
Is because with the jury such evidence hi
l. fearful effect upon the case OF the a
re cused Reversed and remanded. Opt
20 ion by Hurt, j.
ntoVviup Tn He'll GntB