Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-28

being witness, was allowed, over or
lection, to testify as 10 the particulars !
the girls story. Under reneatod A.
cislons OF this court, such evidence il ~
admissible, unless the statements of ~,
injured female are contemporaneons vii,
and Illustrative Of the transaction. ana !,
admissible as res gestp. In this cas-,
very clearly they We're not res Reatp.
Nhere there was any evidence tendlnu
70 show that II was not the Intention ~
the accused to penetrate tho ner'
son OF the assaulted party, n WA
error to refuse to instruct ~
Jury that there could be no ranc
without penetration, and no assanlt
TO rape without an intention -.
penetrate Such evidence also called toy
Instructions upon aggravated assault, for
however indecent or outrageous the as.
sault II Is the intent to penetrate the per.
son OF the assaulted party that makes the
act an assault with Intent 10 rape
Reversed and remanded Opinion by
Hurt, j. ~
w W Brady, county Judge, VS.. Lewis
&Willis, appeal from Wise. This was
an action on liquor dealers bond. one
OF the sureties specially answered that he
could notread and write and that he had
been inducedto sign the bond by the
false representations OF the PRINCIPAL. and
that this was known to the county iudoe
when be accepted and approved the bond
ANY fraud or deceit hy ~, ~ ~
Inducing another 40 hsccma .l'ai y,
not relieve the comfy from ,ish,ii,,, q, ny
absence Of anv tnowiadny :" we
such deceit nv ,hs VI
or of kbowledoa m s,ch fao,s -, LAY ..,,..,J,
put him upon innpirv Thara 10 "Du ~
evidence in this nsss % sna.,, ~, no
county Indigo had auv sneh ,,,i .na' ~
the court erred in snbm,,,jna 1870 ~ WY
to the inry. The verdic, - WIS .s7e ~
the evidence Reversed ana yar,s,ao -
Opinion by IInrt /
Jno. McElmnrrav vs s,s,o a.,
from I,ynlde To an indic,man, -, sF Ky.
Ing from the range nreser,ad q, Irnats.,
county tho defendant ninadad to.s aas
ieopardy. The nlea alIeged ~ arhs,a, noa
that he had been indIc,ed IN Tisnoe
county district conrt Tor tan ,hat, 80 ,his
same horse. that he was mt nnnr ,r,si
The evidence was adduced ana tbe caeo
closed by both the stete ana defensa ~
far as the evidence was concarnad. ~
thereupon lac conrt nnon motion ~ mo
district attorney np,erod az -.
dischargIna the iurv hecense tha
evidence showed that the Kinner r,r,,,,,
Cont had no Jurisdiction tho otfensa nc, ~,
ing heen Committed IN Iryaido rhe rIo.
further alIeged that the distrlct cnnr, ~
Kinnev co,,ntv ala hoye inrisdgc,,,,,
The CONT sns,ained avco,,,,nrs =. ~,
nIea and strncr Il ont 1eId tbot q AZ
~
from ,he ranoe nnder All 7ia on ~ ~
dl c tor ,bott nndcr IT. "a. "n o " a
dsfondant NAV no cony,c,ad o., d~,ri,e,
from ronge under Art 7i0 in any corntv
into which he hrinos ar drives tha ami
nal This belno 20. # defendant drove
The animal from ia range in ITvald,, ioto
Kinney county the district conrt NJ ,he
latter comfy had iurisdIet,on and tle de.
fendant vvae in ie6nardv Tbe defendsn,
shonId have besn allowed 20 stand on hIe
nIeo and n nroved be gas entj,led 70 he
discbarged Reyarsod and remando1
oninion by Hurt, j.
Dayid / prady va tho state annual
t,cTr Tray,s N tormer trial mo 90 ~
uent 20 he inv AZ G O'Clock n m ON
Sstnrdsv. ina inv vUere deiihersting
,n n + "a o,cioci Mo,dav evenino when
| tbav ,vera hrongbt intn ,oprt On thc
o CrSy w" ~ tbe indss. thev renorted ,ba,
T ~, hsd no ,t ana could not seree nn,,n .
n snrJ ~ Tbe court dIscbsrged them
,, J,b no copsemt ~ detenGant Held
nader m,,h the rnle IN VSrnes Va the state. ~
y, ar,A az there ia M ahnse ~ AZ.
cre,i or, shown how and the court aid not err,
I ~ stri,lno ont INA nIea ~ forme,
; ~ e'sd AZ ~ sed nn these facts
JSH ~ ooyns,,tnte he c,tme N embazzle.
,oant nnSer our Gods The conversion
n ,mvn, he ~ money or pronerty Of The
mus, nr1So,n o ~ emoioyer and II must bay.
p pa,no'pa mo y, tpe nossession Of The
oolno , ~ onn,ova Inv virtue N
s ssscb AGENCY or emnloymeut Unlcs.
sSoeo TO tocts are shown the con,
' .nssG m NAV he crime hut Il Is not The
o oShTion 80 eIhe11lement II Is the breach
I'M ~ ranosad IN tho agent or omnloye
" "a !. ',r;ncinaI az emnloyer when is tht
" nls p III dssnso Inbnsor VS. state
u.s. g " us ~. oH'o'
q I'M M c oo detondant presented to one
Al 1lil9 oN Ii,I a. rha mice ~ a bale 81
a Do.n The I'm wassgainIt Dohlich and
cottoh, ny u, or no va" pst,ersdp Dohlict
~ iasor S y. o Umv - be dne and know
SHOWING %l. Ilv nt si ,vos IN tbe emnloy Of Pat
.nEsou naid tbe hill The sum was never