Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-26
TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY.
ROUTE srrwrm
The East and the West.

without reference TO the merits. Affirmed.
Opinion by White, p
Humnard VS.. State, appeal from Dallas.
The Indictment alleged the slanderons
words we're spoken OF X, !. III. Tho proof
shows they were spoken OF Becky Jane,''
and there IL no proof that the one Is the
other. This proof IL essential, the name
OF the slandered party as II IL designated
IN the indictment must be proved, and
unless this is done the variance is fatal.
Defendant proposed TO prove by wit
nesses that for three years prior Co the
prosecution the report was current Ia the
nelghborhood that criminal intimacy ex-
listed between the parties involved. The
evidence was competent 10 show the iu-
tent. Duke VS.. State, ~ &C. app. ~. Re
yerHed and demanded. Opinion BY White,
p. j.
wlthers VS.. State, appeal from Denton.
The provisions Of Art. 48i @. G. r., allow.
Ing last indictment to be substituted,
Is not IN conflict with the Fourteenth
amendment Of the United States constitu-
tlon, nor with sec. 10, Art /, OF the Bill OF
Rights of Texas The power TO substi.
tute last Indictment would be inhcront
In the court, without any express statu-
tory authority. In this case the indict-
iutnt Was 1851 DeiOfe plea.
The Indictment charged defendant with
keeping a gaming table, etc, said table
"being then and there kept and exhibited
In the city OF Denion.n II was unnoces.
sary toallcge that II was kept IN the city
Eof Denton, but being so alleged Il Is de-
scriptlve OF the offense aud cannot be
treated az surplusage. There being no
proof that the table was except I'm the city
~ npntnn ~ "A tulf Ia
tain the allegation In the indictment and
does not sustain the conviction. Reversed
aud romanded, Opinion by White, II. j.
lobe Turner vs.. State, appeal from
Tarrant, After the parties had announced
ready for trial, the county attorney moved
the court to quash tho information
for variance between IL and the AFFIDAVIT
or complaint, The information was
quashed and new one filed instanter.
Defendant was denied leave TO wlthdra n
his announcement, not being ready TO
answer TO the new informationi this was
refused, the trial proceeded over OBJ
| lection. Held, II not appearing that the
4 defendant WAS arrested under the new In
| formation, the defendant should have
been discharged until rearrest, unless
he had waived process, etc. Reversed
and remanded. Opinion by white, +. j.
lex parto w. A. Beatty, appeal from
Throckmorton. Appellant asks TO be
| discharged from custody because he is
held on charge for violating the local,
option law, when the election by which
the law was adopted was void. The pc
tltion for the election and the order foi II
were 10 determine whether or not the
sale, "exchangc and bartern Of intoxIcat-
ing liquors should be prohibited. II Is
urged that such an election can only be
held to prohibit the sale. Held, that
IL was the intention OF the Lawmakers
to prohibit the vending for profit such H.
quors, whether by sale strictly speaking
or by barter ana exchange. one barter
ing such liquors IN districts where the
law IL in force is guilty OF m offense. Az
nrmed opinion by Hurt, j..
Cal Harvey vs.. State, appeal from Bay
lor. Defendant was convicted OF theft OF
cattle, The prosecutors brand was not
recorded 10 the clerks Office until after
the theft and the fling OF the indictment.
To the Introduction Of certified copy Of
the record Of the brand the defendant OBJ
ljec;ed, because not recorded be-
fore the theft. Held, this ques-
tlon has been decided adj
yersely TO appellant in Prlesmuch Va. the
State | CT. App, 4Ss, and Spinks W.. the
State, 8 CT. App, 1875. Affirmed opin-
lon by Hurt, j.