Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-11

locus quo drawn by the witness Ball
wa iDadmlrniblo IN evidence. lts cor
rcctnces Ind been established w The wit
ness who executed II, and II was properly
admitted Whhr Grim. EV., Soc. Bif
Garignan W.. State, % Miss, 682.
After holding tho other asslRr ,n.nts
error not well taken The court 81 :. serbs
evidence N this case IL aninl' -an,cIent
70 establish the guilt - sso.iiant M
murder of The 1rst deg - NJ foand hy
The Jury. q cold bloc y, ass.sslna,ion
committed NJ night, 80, nrDncd,taied
dcsiRn, and by lYinr WIN a'hn tndg'
mont is In all thlt " WIZ ~ 80
by white, p,J, 80 anlrmcd. Vpih'on
Nose Lights -. ha a,a,. animal t,om
BrazOs. On W. tne slhtnt APpehl ilVN'
WAS hermit Ghc trial the district attorney
fendanps oed over objection 90 ask Dc
ibe non witness "lf he had not been In
~ n itc0tlnry, and " he was not sent
IA, Jrn Naynsots, Grimes county "
a. sisted that such question was In.
Imisaibo for any purpose, II 10 show
incompotency, that then tho record Of
lvonvictiOn WIS the only legal evidence,
! IN 70 discrcdit tho Witness then tho
! method was incompetent. After review
ing nj length the authorities -ihe pfincl-
pal being Whar. Grim, Nv. va Real w,
: People, " N. ", 270j driswold vs New.
! comb, ~ N. ", 2gB, State VA. Pike, 06
! Mo-, III, aud Ivy Va State, u Tex. 8bi
/ The court say 1.-THE court did not err IN
! permitting tho question 10 DO asked. We
think II clear that The rglo announced IN
! Ivy W State, ~ Tex. 3D. IL Incorrect,
and the doctrine there announced upon
/ this subject Will DO hereafter considered
+ ~ 0vcrruled.n
Il has never been held that the stsiu-
tory definition Of m offonse IN essentially
requisite in the charge, pro.
I ydad the constituent clements arc 80
! charged as that the Jury arc required 10
, ind their existence ~ d prerequisite 10
conviction. Here after nm assault was
defined the Jury were told that az male
person makes nn assault on woman with
Intent then and thorc by force TO have
cafpal knowledge Of such woman, with.
out the consent aud against the will Of
The woman, such an assault would be as
sault with Intent 10 rape This was
sufficient Affirmed. Opinion by white,
P.J
Texas Land & Cattle Go. Va. Joe Ben
ton, appeal from Wilbarger An account
Tor various articles OF cowboy equipments
alleged TO have been converted by tho
"NbHt' thh 'iHUip1Nb VI uoltUUhHb ~ NOT
such an nccoupNts' To como within the
provisions OF Arb. '22GG II s., and which
could be established by the affidavit Of
plaintiff,
There was Judgment by default in jns.
tees court and defendant appealed
TO the county court, where the
defendant pleaded payment and general
denial. Tho court erred In striking out
these defensive pleadlDgs aud diminishing
the appeal Even had tho account been
one which could bG established by an
dayit, the defendant WAS entitled to plead
aud prove IN the county court either pay.
mcnt or any defense proper to ho made
under the general denial Reversed and
fomandod. Opinion by White T.. j.
Ross llyburn Va, state, appeal from
! TrnylH TIL defendant being indicted
for assault with intent 20 rape, the np.
| pliGatiou tor continuance showed that
no expects to prove by two absent wit
noeaes 'tthnt at tho time the offense Ia
alleged, they wore IN the same house a.
tbo complaining Witness just separated
IRON bof by thin partition wall, aud
that said Jane Ohio nss0ullcd) know
| they were thereJane and tho two
absent witnesses being white ana the de-
PENDANT blnck, That they heard no out.
cry nor alarm nor conversation; that an
ordinary conversation eau bn heard from
one room TO the nlherp The diligence
shown being mnlclcnt, there was error IN
ovorrullng this application, aud failing In
granting The same a new trial ought TO
have been granted. Reversed aud re.
lnandod Opinion by white, r. J