Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-19

able offense under the laws OF the nation
Il. s. Art. 2250; Cummin's case, 10 CT.
app. i2l Affirmed. opinion by White,
P,J
Tom Lyle vs.. State, appeal from wiz
larger. Defendant heing on trial for
carrying pistol, he offered In evidence
the following document "Thls is TO
certify that ] have appointed j. i, Lyle
my special deputy for ten days for the
purpose Of tracing some stolen
horses, This is to remain In
force for ten days from this
day, and to carry firearms for the time
specified above. Signed, John Bland,
Sheriff of llardeman County, Tex"
\ This was excluded by the court. Held,
whether this appointment WAS legal or
not, II was In Its very nature strongly cal
culated 90 induce the belief on the part OF
defendant that he had the right 10 carry
the pistol, and thus show no intention to
! violate the law We doubt the criminal
ity OF the citizen when In hot pursuit Of
the thief or OF stolen property he carries
! his pistol with him. OF course this must
not be used as pretext tor violating the
law. Reversed and remanded. Opinion
+ by Hurt j.
) j. q. Thompson VS.. State, from wise.
. Upon the trial the state read in evil
| deuce, over objection by the defense, part
of the transcript before the committing
court, showing that Mrs McNeely, the
. owner Of the stolen properly, made the
I complaint, and that defendant waived an
$ examination aud gave bond, etc. Held
1 that part of the record which showed who
, made the complaint was competent evil
@ dence, but that part which informed
I the jury that defendant had
= waived examination aud given
\ bond should not have been admitted. The
l. evidence Is not sufficient TO warrant con
d viction Reversed and remanded. Opinion
Is by Hurt, j.
Il G. g. Rollins vs.. State, appeal from
e Collin, The indictment was Tor forgery,
d aud the indictment alleged that the
e forged order was In the possession OF de-
l. PENDANT, lost or destroyed, and that ac-
b cess TO the same could not be had by the
g. grand Jury. Over the objection OF de-
O. PENDANT the state WAS permitted to prove
by pnrol the contents OF the order. Held,
Al that this was error In the absence OF any
le notice to the defense that
r he must produce the original
A. or secondary evidence would be used.
e The allegation In the Indictment given
:, above did not obvlate the necessity
c for this formal notice | Greenl. Ev.
$50 5Gl 9 Bish. Or Pr Sec Az. Re
~ Verbeu ana fenhHuSu' pplnlon w
% Hurt, j,
1t H. b. Sanborn Va. State, appeal fr ON
q Grayson Appellant was convicted for
1t williully obstructiug public road There
d was evidence tending TO show that de-
PENDANT erected his fence under a mistake
III az 10 the location Of the road, and
" that he had used extraordinary dill
rs gence In endeavoring To ascertain
At its true locality before he built the fence.
&c The Judge, trying the case without jury,
ct found this as u fact, but held him guilty
81 Held, that TO convict the state must show
IL that the accused willfully obstructed the
T. road. This was not shown, and the de
10 Tense proved the negative. The judgment
)t WAS erroneous and not supported by the
81 findings Of fact. That the willfuily OBJ
d. STRUGGLING the road could only be- oOnsId.
cred In mitigation OF the penalty Is mis-
IN taken view Of the statute. Reversed and
" remanded. Opinion By Hurt, j.