Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-19
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis OF Decisions Rendered at the Gal
weston sitting of the Supreme Court.

synopsis OF Decisions Rendered at the Gal
weston sitting OF the Supreme Court.
Louis Williams VS., the State, appeal
from Cook. DEPENDENT had been pre-
ylously convicted for the same offense,
and upon appeal 20 this court from that
Judgment IL was reversed aud the prose
cution was dismissed, this court holding
that the indictment was void because
presented by grand jury composed OF
thirteen men,
Before the mandate from this court was
received by the district court q new IN.
dictment was presented and trial and
Judgment Of conviction had. by motion
In arrest the defendant objected that the
indictment was void because presented
az the time when tho case was pend
Ing IN the court OF appeals and hence
there was no jurisdiction. Held, that un-
der the provisions Of our present code,
the motion IL not maintainable. The
case OF Burdett Va. State, Texas Rep.
a., which seems 10 present different
view, was decided before the present code
was adopted and is not applicable. If
this be not true, II IL iudielally
known 70 this court that the first indict-
ment was void, and we would not be au.
thorlzed to hold that Its pendency would
bar the prosecution OF another. Affirmed.
Opinion by white, Z.
Morg. McInturf VS.. the State, appeal
from Erath. Defendant was convicted
for murder In the first degree and his
punishment assessed nc confinement for
life. The homicide occurred In 1873. IL
Is contended that this punishment
was not authorized by tile
law in force at the time
the offcnse was committed. The punish
mont Fixed by statute previous TO the con-
stitution Of 1869 was death, and the effect
OF the provision OF that constitution was
TO confer upon the jury the power 70
commute 10 Imprisonment for life. II
left tire statute still In force, and the
adoption OF the present constitution did
not leave this offence without n punish
mcnt llxed by law, but merely took from
the Jury the right 10 change the punish
ment, and leaving II absolutely at death
The change made by the present Re.
yised Statutes as 70 the punishment was
ameiioration aud the court did not error
! In charging the Jury under the present
/ law. IL was neither retroactive nor ex'
past facto neither the inhibition Of tho
| Constitution. The defendant II he NO de.
sired and elected could have had the old
punishment changed, but standing mute
the court was right.
As set out IN the judgment the verdict
| lnds the defendant guilty Of murder IN
the first degree and assesses "hi'
punishment at confinement In The
penitentiary'i-bu does not state
| that Il IS 10 be "for life" This would
be fatal did other parts OF tho record MOI
disclose the true verdict and show ina
uoted Ia the judgment 70 be elerica
error.
The refusal Of the court below to com
pcl assisting counsel for the state 70 fur
nish him with the names OF the person.
who had retained them, 30 as 20 aval
himself Of this knowledge Ia hli
challenges TO Jurors, Is not ground 10
reversal, where II appears that the Juror
presented were fully examined as 70 THE
/. connection with the prosecution. al
lIrmed. Opinion by White, p.J
Dick shnllz VS.. The State, appeal iron
Dewitt. When tho owner OK IN
. stolen horses challenged the defend
ants right ~ them, deienunn
, said he had authority from on
, Denham 70 take up horses Of like descrif
| ton; thar he believed them I
! DO DenhaDi'si that Denbam live
In Lrsacca comfy aud elaine
70 have horses Up the neighoorhoo
! aud had promised 70 pay him for eettin
; them up. Held, as the state relied upo
: recent possession % show guilt y y
yOlred upon It 10 prove the faleiiy OF IN
D explanation, which WAS reasonable.
4 charge upon seaeonablc doupt sAoni