Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-29
nIaagR ccURTs.

~ . "a
ss'' - I. me state, appeal
lssi i.. Y: for theft tc o. =
10. cons ',nt before this couI.
lFsns :, X facts nor bill Of !
aitn men cases q e. We can 10, only nlI,
d :usa l, ' q the indictment
'IiIs l.s Y Z ne charge , when
lieess. y Of the indict-
,l iss No error is perceived
II DO state, appeal
rsSo .'slvr-ucting a pu6lic, road 4
Vesr ~ ~ one Finley m
va .' gos by the people OF y
xxx. aldr Ccscsdutles; that i h aaa
B'sl .nI, sI road about fourteen,
Z p 'sss. upon the request o. o.
50 ' sss,ys,,nissIoners' court OF
y ' Maze an order thar
'sg AIS road as ran an
,'sr county sh gu io ~
ss.sslic rosd. NO IVY
PIN. ,,nted, but one OF the
appointed oyerscer'
&, ~ Va Id not have any le-
sv.1 p mol road by virtue
Nc M court, because the
X The statute was not
" g sSe facts establish II q
n Y -; ,ero usage. Reversed
Il y doinlon BY Hurt, ]
,gs state, appeal from
4 ,,.,sietment alleges that
"a s,DIawfulIy on Sunday sell
.,,.ous certain drinks OF
F ~ Being then and there o
held, that the allegation
s<sor dealer was equ.va-
n was a dealer IN mer-
4 s,ror IL refusing to strike
s,Ist because It was not flied
n court and ordering the
+ ~ General charge the jury
4 !, edeieudant is presumed
.soefnt until his guilt
fi1y legal evidence, and In
.,sable doubt as to his guilt,
n 70 he scquitted,n 1t was no
3 q 4 special charge that "the
4,ooi was upon the state to
&ruse Is alleged"
4 e6i,cis to the charge as a
4 re & DO radical error appar-
4 there we're no exceptions
y tine the court WIZ NOV seeS
tesnor case for defects. AZ
kIn.on by Hurt, j.
N Is. State, appeal from Fan
{dlc,ment charged burglary in
4 The court charged all the
tAD. There was no eAoep.
yea TO the charge tne ooure
law 70 the case presenteu III
bent and ny the evidence
10 exceptions -, I res ,,. y, a ~, y
apparent, lhe Judgment VI iue
vii not DC reVerseu 'of tiis
~ requested the loiloWins
'lhil the possession Oh stolen
puI DINER evidence Oh gun ~, -
fn1 70 conVlcI' elc lhis
ienuy Ieiuseu, do ~ "ae
|eIgnt OF eyluence. II there
|reYldence save nakeu posses
Pt tholld nave granted d new
pea. Oplnlon DV hurt, D.
y SUPREME COUNT.
" vs., o. M. LINDSEY .II appear
'sue' Inc sherlH's return 10
|illicnme1i SHOWS d ieVy upon
10y me D nj MOSS survey, aD.
~, near own OF burlington
/ county me Judgment lore
i.n describes the land "as hlty
Ft NJ MOSS survey, abstract
|aslsd near tue Town OF Bur
m order pi sale Is IN the
fF ms descrlotl Is 90
alecl ana lnsuihcient. NO
E5elfom what was ne shape
|l9 IN what part Of the sur
aluateu. ms imperfect
MOI AIDED oy the descrlp-
Y ,,, Wy snsfln's deed Aillrmed'
mlale, Y D,
gsi v. j.. M. White, appeal
|asae' Mnere there are lour
'Puues 70 'ne hrSt, ana nVe TO
Vllglnai answer, an assign
y snat 'ne court erred In sus-
.spuons 70 hrst ana second
Y, nv ls 700 general 10 invoke
I, p., Y .nis court Aihrmeu.
Y, W y a. vs. /. +; Martin, ap-
i +, li White claimed
|. PiNns issued IN August,
. peallon made IN 1874, by
''.'lucale 10 one joyce by
~ '.'se aa, ~ 1913. Inc act d.
,.s once TO Issue to Joyce
's1.,. guy, "a heu Oh NO lb2,
s ,ss county, without the con-
/, ~, !, , aeisrreu 10 was Issued
I. 'anu commissioners, VINO
y. y " =, issue. ~ was VOID,
y. s".. " the foundation OF Il
y, 'p's ,,.al act was IN effect a
!, M 'a .h py the constitution
~ 'qs legislature had NO
l ! 7. Bacon ct al. vs. Russell,
I noi'nes vs.. Anderson, 81
4. .,,
n, ovo appilca ny 10 the proper
I s,s, y. 70, 1852, to survey
y 'I un ~, id me act of July a.
4 s'va ~, 1881 C5O-cent act)
Nas surveyed. The tielC
'. asl 70 land Office Janu'
, Jay, a.u On March ~ following
''r NM treasurer the full price
"A 'a ~ 'he survey was made
M an eAecutory contrac
mo-, .le purchaser I
! e 1gtu complying with hi
/ w syo,'s a',,,. 70 have the lant
fIys ' ~, SUBSEQUENT g Legislation
|. a. ,h ,,.a, Inc right OF ap
4 ..oush the act Of Januai,