Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-04
THE HIGHER COURTS.

synopsis of Decisions Rendered at The
austin sitting of the Court of Appeals.
+. Downs VS.. State, appeal from
Bell. The only question in the case is
whether 1t is an offense for the president
OF national bank, when called on bv an
assessor of taxes, to reuse to make ont
and render to the assessor a list and
statement OF the taxable property owned
oy the bank, and the amount of stock.
ana the names of the owners of the
shares' Article ll2 p. G. is broad
enough to include such n
case literal Interpretation Of
SAID article would lead to a different
conclusion, but when its purpose is con-
slaereu IN connection with the tax laws
u is evident that it was intended to an.
ply not only to the owner of pronertv
out 10 any person who may hold, con.
uol ana manage property as the agent or
representative OF the owner. The iudp-
ulent Is alnrmed. Opinion by Wilson. Z
,,. irwin turner VS.. the State, appeal from
n MI Wnere the charge is that defendant
wiiiIully shot and wounded an animal.
70 warrant conviction it must he
proved that In doing the act he was actin
ateu ny eVil intent or legal malice. or
WITHOUT reasonable ground for believing
sne act to be lawful. In this case #
oIeariy appears that at the time defend.
ant snot the horse, SAID horse was vio-
lenuy attacking defendants horse. Re.
serseq ana remanded. Opinion by VIII.
=, refer Menges VS.. State, appeal from
hlinple. The mere absence of a neraon
from the state does not render his tasti-
mony taken before an exem,n-
lug court admissible In evidence
ior the state. Evans VS.. state
~ Gu app. $40. The predicate rennire6
oy the statute is that he resided ont ~
tne state, or that he had removed bevond
ene limits OF the state. c. G. P.77S
nc,o, -. Reversed and remonded
oPlhlon by Wilson, j.
Jno. ~ Woodleib VS.. State. ANIMAL
from Ellis, 1t is within the power ~ p tha
voters OF precinct, city or town, 70 rae
peal tne local option law within the.i;mtts
oi such precinct, town or civ not,Si,b
Standing said law had been adont "a ana
Is III force In the entire country IL ct
app SOL Since this conviction Dos bsS
!. tne city OF Waxahache has by a IegaI o i,au
lion repealed the law aud as the Ian NJ
not now IN force there, this cAnvic,ia,,
cannot stand. Reversed and d,smissad
Opinion by Wilson, ]. W u'' MISSED
Brown McCaudIess VS.. State onroo,
rom bosgue The court CHARGED as Pp foi
lows' when the natural and IL isd III
mate consequences OF obscene ~
vulgar language, or II cnrs,nn
y wearing would be to disturb tho in
l !, .,,l OF a place, then Won are ~
osaucteu mat In law II would be used in -,
calculated to disturb the inh ~
ANTS Of such place. There is No snch
,,l,'st o. law and in giving this cbarse tha
~, W. ~ invaded the province Of the n ,r
= a. ne'a ae the language used was c aleu-
. hseu 20 disturb was question of fact tor
- 1a,n Jury. Reversed and remsn oS aSr
rom ION oomerville. The information cS bppesl
,sS.. defendant 'e "willfully did obstrsct
,sr G, road in the unincorporstsdi t ia
u Sien Rose by building fence e sow !,
ine Snense denounced by The ststr &C.
/, lIs obstruction of any "publie,, roaS rs
'sa"Ay' or any street or alley IN VI