Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-04
THE RICHER COURTS.
Decisions Rendered ut tho Galveston slt
ting OF tho Court Of Appeals.


ting OF the Court Of Appeals
Burrll Bond W. the State, appeal iron,
I Grnyson. The effect OF the act OF April ~.
lbSB, (gen. laws, y, 80, amending article
1922, L. C., was to change the definition
OF the onensG OF robbery la one impor
tant particular, the change being caused
by tho use Of the word tori whore the
word "nnd" had occurred IN the former,
aud after the word ''ylolence" and before
tho words 'by putting In fear Of iIfu or
bodily injury As the law now ~ there
are three modes by which the offensc
may be cpmmtttodi by assault; 2. By
/ Niolencei % ny putting IN fear Of llfo or
bodily Injury cncltboiug separate and
| distinct mode within Itself, whether com
| mitiod andaccompaniod ornot by olthrrof
\ mo others. This change IN the law was
1 overlooked In the opinion In this case at
former dry
/ Where the second subpoena Tor wit
/ ness was returned not found on the lith,
/ and tho trial WAS on the 9Th, without
any process isruing between the two
dates, no diligence " shown In snpporl
OF requested continuance for the ab.
sonce OF the Witness.
! In asking fora bin of exceptions com.
sol for defendant remarked 10 the court.
"all the defendant wants Is TINT Tho
7 record speak the truth as 10 what has
transplrud aud that defendant have his
! rights and be awarded fair bin, - when
the court rcjoined, "lt does uotseemthn
way 20 me or there would not be- all this
I wrangllng." This wax said In hearing
OF the Jury aud the court explained ID
ihem that he intended to carry the
Idea that he thought The attorney,
were trying 60 get some technical adj.
vantage IN the case. Held, that the rc.
marks were highly Objectionable and i'm
proper hut In aud OF themselves do not
AFFORD suilloiont grounds Tor reversal OF
the Judgment Affirmed Opinion hy
White, I. j.
Geo Leonard vs. the State, nppeal from
Graysop. This lisa companion case TO
that OF Bond Wy, State, supra, and the
ruling mado In that cuse In regard To u
coHtinuapco applies IN this case.
Appellant claims that h hik closing az
gumont TO the jury the county attorney
stated thgt "this defendant stood mut.
aud said nothing when accused OF the
ROBBERY By sac prosecuting witness IN the
presence OF tie officers OF the iaw.n Held,
that ~ this was fact IA evidence, IL was
legitimate subject for discussion, A
prosecuting oillcer certainly has the
right 70 discuss. nso aud comment upon
every fact IN evidence, and his duty n
gulres hln % 40 so, Allrmed Opinion
BY White, p.I
j. 4. Fields W.. Crescent News CON
pany, appeal from Fort HtDd. A party
Is not entitled 10 ttlal by Jury unless he |
complies with the requirements Of tho |
statute, which are % make application
therefor, depoaltiug tlae jury fec az the |
same time, on tne first dry OF the term OF
tne court or on the appearance day, II the
case y an appearance casa. In this cAse
az the demand was not gnado until the
case was called fortrlnl, the court did not /
orr Ia refusing 60 alive Jury 80 Tex, |
lS2 Affirmed. Opinion by w ilson, j
Ed, Collins w. Ito state, app cal from /
larraut. Although the dofendant IN
making his confession may have t,,,.n and 4
doubtless WAS Influenced by persus sion I
aud promises, sin Ia connection with his
confession, he made statement 81