Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-23

by a bin Of sale In order 70 bis being con.
ylcted Tor the theft Of The horse. y
While this proposition may be
true yet the use OF this language was
most fearful outrage u assumes that
The horse was stolen and that defendant
was the thief. and II that be true the case
IL closed Reversed and remnndcd.
Opiulon by Hurt
W. II M!sseldluc w., state, appeal
from Pal0 Pinto. This n conviction Tor
theft OF hogs alleged 70 90 the property OF
one Fayrs II n had been trial OF The
right Of property between she defendant
and the prosecution, aud there
bad been verdict, we would not
fosl authorized TO disturb II, whether In
favor of the one or the other, Such being
The evidence IN the record the couvption
will not bc allowed 60 stand. Reversed
and rrmanded. Opinion by Hurt, y.
j. l.. Clayton vs.. State, appeal from
Taylor. The proof Is clear that az the
time the defendant carried tho pistol
he was deputy shorif OF
peasc eoanty. The court CHARGED
that Il defendant was peace
officer sud he was In Taylor county ~
the discharge OF his Official business NO
should be acquitted, but n IN pursuit OF
his private affairs no should be convicted
Counsel for appellant asked charge TO
the Eject that n he WAS n deputy sheriff
OF any comfy 10 the state while carrying
the pistol he should We acquitted. Thus
requested charge IL The law
of the case aud Il was error
TO refuse IL. A deputy sheriff
IS u peace officer, and as such Is excepted
! from The operation OF art. ais p, g. See
/ n nj A..A
ioa by Hurt, j
! j. @. Preakill VS.. j. u. Woodward, up.
peal from Wise. This was an action 10
recover some hogs and damages for NJ
treating and taking them up, The do.
PENDANT pleaded IN rceonyention for dam
\ ages done by the hogs TO the vegetation
IN his Held That WAS Judgment for
the defendant on his plea. The
evidence shows that the crop injured by
the hogs was the joint property OF him
and his brother. This brother was not "a
party TO the suit, and no fact was shown
that would authorize recovery by de-
| fenhant IN his own name aud right for iu-
inrles done 20 this Joint properyt This
being So no could not recover on his
plea. Reversed aud remanded. Opinion
by Hurt, j,
Garrison OF al. va the State, appeal
from Parker. A writ of sclre faoles serves
the purpose OF n citation and q petition
The state by the writ 10 this case declared
upon forfeited recognlzance, but upon
the trial the state relied on a forfeited
bail.bond. In this there was fatal va
rance In the pleading and proof. Anoth.
or defect Is that the writ falls to give the
date OF the recognizante, but as this
was not taken advantage OF by
exception 10 the writ, II comes toe
late after answer TO the merits. Re.
yersed and rcmsnded' Opinion by
II w. Neiderluck vs., the State, appeal
! from Bgxar. The Indictment charged
the theft OF money, the property OF II. =
{ Wood the proof showed that II was thC
property OF II, S. Woods. Under TIT
authorities wood and ''Woods' ar,
| neither the same name nor idem sonaus
! parchman v state, 2 ct, app. 22si whar
/ Grim. Law, sec. %, There IL no proc
in the record that Woods was called
: Wood aud the variance Is fatal
The code does not require that the dc
, fendaut shall be In jall for the offenst
then being tried, 20 render his confession
, Incompetent. Art $50 c, @. P,i Gross
vs.. State, II CHI. App $685. Davis W.
Obhlo, ~ On. app @ue'
Before the defendant was arrested 10
this offense, he and some others were /
jail az Migrants, and the court over oil
ieetlons admitted IN eyldenc
statements made by the othe
| parties In defendants presence
! no proof having been made that he wa
/. cautioned or that his confessions or state
ments were true. This was error. Re
versed aud rcmlnded, Opinion b.
. Hurt, j.
Dick Coon VS. the State, appeal iron
Burnett. When the defendants case wa
6 called his counsel stated to the court tina
(. he desired 10 inteTpose plea OF tonne
conviction. The court allowed him III
teen minutes, and the defendant ex
cepted. After the states eyldcnc
/, WAS partly in, counsel died and OF
!. ierod TO read to the jury pleI
= OF former conviction, but the same was
:, on motion Of the county attorney, strlck
. en- out. Under the.clrcuinstances counse
should have been allowed more time, an
the plea should have been entertained b
the court and tried upon It's merits. ie
versod and remanded Opinion b
Hurt, j.
. j. 7. James W.. State, appeal from Pal
Pinto. This was a conviction for drlN
II Ing cattle from their accustome
r range under circumstances not amount
Z ing to theft. The charge AZ given wa
y not excepted 10, nor was additloDn
d charges requested for the defense. II !
. complained that II was error not TO de
q fine the term "williul" as used In III
i statute defining this offense. Repe1to
decisions Of this court hold that the fail
$ ure TO define this term Ms use'
9 In othsr articles of the code. But In thi
oifense the statute Itself specially set
d ont what shall be presumed from the &C
of driving, aud this inyokes dtfercn
, rule from that applicable 10 the offense
I TO which the decisions relate. See arr
I 100 G. G. L. Affirmed. Per curlam.
---------.---------~uu-------------
q A bottle OF Augostura Filters 10 llavo
.,,, ~, IA, ~. an, othap .oId drin