Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-18
the HIGHER COURTS.
gynopses OF Decisiona Rendered at ths
Present Tyler sitting.

Prebrnt Iyfsr oitlnEs
COURT or APPEALS Tyler TERN, 1885,
Nod Anderson Va. the State. Appeal
| 80. tT.raorson ecpntv Ona Green
( o., 49,. 80. ,.,od 4, i,.,,o,. 1000 conrt
ui'sn' wa NI'N :. 'N'',-s reess - =,
lot carrylng p'sVO.' nppeiiah' "Is
witness, and belcg charged with perjury
WIS tried and convicted. There Is evil
dence In the record strongly showing that
The comm, in, was not sworn 60. ana ap-
Z roi,.,, tns,s,. tbat in,isd,c,ion had never
a,,acSs.d On that case. and hence there
MS no ant, oritv 10 swear Va itness. and
,baratore M nerinrv Unon this
snL;an, ~ p,sbnn sava. trims We
80 Iioaa - the furtber Drnnosition that
No, o,I,, must tho .rihpnal have
liuriadtctton ~ the Cause ~ before ex.
y,Iained mn tho canse must he nropevly
IL go, y Tbe conrt ,nrst not onlv nave
;nrisd efion ~ The oanse on action. hut
;he inrisdiction must have attached ia the
nsrt,cnisr c,se. Pron tbjsit would seem
tSst tSe nosltion of appellsnt h correct.
We have no douht Of lie correctness at
common law. hut how stands the ques-
zion when vi..sv. a nv ;h,, lioht ~ the pro.
visious of our cnrrs fitutiony Concede
thai iurisdiction OF the court had not
nroperlv attached TO the particular case,
vet there was n trial betnre a court of
Icon,nstent fu,indjction poon n charge of
some offsnse. and though NOT uroperly
before the court. its adindicaiion. II
resniting I'm verdict of n1t oniliy, has
snch fn,ce and eject as will enable
the accused TO plead that the MISTER was
res a1iudicsts. plead this trial before a
court of competant Jurisdiction and YER
dict OF not guilty in bar of another prose.
Icution. The Judgment in such case
would NOT be a nuIity both as TO state and
the accused. for while the state would be
bound by it, the accused. IL convicted,
would not. The state being bound by
such Judgment, by reason of such trial
and verdict. we are clearly of the opipion
that a witness swearing falsely upon such
trial would be guilty of periurv. IL is
true that the evidence was Conflicting,
but the Jury were the exclusive Judges OF
the credibiiity OF the witnesses. and this
court caunot revise this decision. Al
frmed. Hurt, j.
j. b. WinkIer ys. the State. Appeal
: from Tarrant county. There was no
fundamental error in the court below.
The charge was as a whole substantially
correct and this court cannot take c. pni.
zance of an immateriaI error winch wonld
not prejudice rights Of defendant Al
Grmed. Hurt, j.
Dennis Harris vs.. the State. Appeal
! from Houston county. In This case there
was proof OF an abb and counsel for an
prllant strenuously contend that the ey-
idence is insufficient to sustain the yer
dict. The inrv were thA exclusive indges
of the credibllity of the witnesses and
uule-s their verdict ia nloinIv unvar.
rapted this court win moi distuFn the
Judgment. Affirmed. Wilson. i
W l. Pattuo vs. the State Anneal
from Bosoue countv II is nrped Inv
coopsel fof. appelI,ni that the charge r, /
alive 10 murder in inc 6rst de@ree oh
lie, tlonable. While this mae he frue. an.
1rllAnt can NOT comuIaio hpcause th,. inrv
found th Il he was NOT onIltv of mnrdsr In
Ina first dpprep. and tn.refore 1annellan nj
can NOT be Injured by that mart of the
charge relating 10 murder in the frst do
cree L. was obi-ctrd nv copneeI tor an.
nellant thar the CHARGE did not instrnrt
The Jury that thew were To consider the
Inn laIent dancers as II anneared m do.
, PENDANT We consider tho nhinc,inn ,vaIl
taken. Defendant songht ~ cnre MS
defect bv a sneoiaI charge ovsTing the
/ ground speciHsd. which was relectsd Inv
! the court below at is a rnie not cnIy
, statutory. hut of almost universal acran.
tatlon, that party NAV ACT unon reason.
/ able appsaranoes If danger and tba,
, whether the danger ia onnsrent or not IL
, ALWAYS 70 be determined from the defer
dantis standpointn For ahnve error in
, the charge. and refnsing detendantis
! special charge the cause il reversed art
remauded. white. p /
J Martha Biecrr 81 al W. Jobn L lone.
I & Son, Appen from Rnsk cnnntv An
; pell,es sued appellant. mon her nrom
isory no g and also tn have q mor,gag,
ON two n niles fnrecl sod AnnsIIses al :,
| sued out writ Of senual,rstion am
, levied ON snid mules Aanrlisnt Marth,
Qieoer. RENEWED the mnIss aiying tbc
A hond r. onired nv law Af,e, ths re5,sv,
nond wa. fIled and wbile the rnnlas ,yor,
In hep possession one NJ tbera died n,
ths tr,sI avid nce ~ ,bo Gaa,b ~ ~,
mnIe was offered and p isc,ad Hall
IL ,Sss not errnr ~ rsisc, iSts tes+,nnnn
The Ia " nroy,des maj Nor t6a rnnditio,
~ tbe indgment tbe nronertn. ~ lin,
" VIZ ~ t,'i'~' ''AN l'NbNA W Va NoAh