Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-25
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis of Decisions Rendered at the Gal.
weston Sitting of the Court of Appeals.


synopsis of Decisions Rendered at the CAL
weston Sitting of the Court of Appeals.
James Hunnicutt VS.. State, appeal from
Dallas. This is the second conviction in
this case as CT app. 1889. Objection
was made to a pardon offered by the state
to show competency of the witness,
Palser, who was an eX-convict The wit
ness had been convicted at the June term,
1878, of "theft of Il steer;n the pardon
was Tor conviction for "cow-stealing"
at the September term. Held, in common
parlance and acceptation we can but say
that theft of "steern is embraced in the
general charge of cow-stealing, and the
evidence shows that there had been but
one conviction. The objection was not
well taken.
Further objection was urged to the
competency of Palser as a witness be-
cause he had, on the day after the homi-
eide, stated before the grand jury that he
himself had killed the deceased, and after
being placed in jail, two members Of the
grand jury told him if he would change
his testimony and state that he did not do
the killing he would be turned loose.
Thus the witness was bribed and should
not be allowed to give evidence. Held,
such matter did not affect the compe-
tency, but the credit OF the witness.
When the state closed its testimony
the defendant moved the court to require
the state to introduce as witnesses three
other parties who were shown to have
been present at and eye-wtnesses to the
shooting, and in support of the motion it
was urged that the only witness that
I'm gfa IN ftNtr
Palser, who was brlbed, etc. Upon this
point White, p. j., expressing his indi-
vidual opinion, says this motion should
have been sustained.
The court, in submitting the law
OF seli-defense, charged that in or
der to Justify killing to
prevent the intlction OF "serious
bodily injury, the slayer must first resort
TO all other means for the prevention of
the injury Held, that this was an erro.
neous restriction OF the law of self-de-
tense, Art. OIL G. G. p, was never
Intended solely as an addenda or quail
ncatlon OF Art. 572, that it was intended
as an independent declaration with regard
To the law Of self-defense, which should he
applied to all attacks producing reason
able expectation or fear of death or
.ShiNVo poNllg INJURY = pom lllS point
Hurt, j., dlssents in an elaborate opinion.
Reversed and remanded Opinion by
White, P.J
j. f Hecker vs., Robt Miller. an
peal from Galveston. The issue
being the ownership of Ger.
tain cattle, objection was made to the
admissibility in evidence ola bill of sale
thereto to plaintiff, because IL was n
quit claim bill OF salen II such term
can be correctly applied to bill OF sale
there is no reason to apply it TO the one
IN question. 1t transferred all the right
title and interest which the vendor had
IN aud to the cattle, which is a convey
ance OF the cattle, for should
u turn out that the vendor
had no title, and consideration was pnid
he would be liable ON his warranty i'm.
piled. There was no error in the courts
admitting In evidence the bill of sale
affirmed, Opinion by Hurt, j.
J II Hendry vs. Texas & Sontbern
hallway Company, appeal from Polk. The
company purchased from Hendry 100 feet
right OF way over his homestead tract q,
land and built its road-bed through The
center OF this right Of wav
Afterwards, without Hendry,s consant
the company built section.house IN ~
land OF Hendry, adjacent to its right 81