Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-30

was not admissible. Burton " State. ID
ct. app. i6e. Reversed aud rtinandqd.
0nlnion by White, PsJ.
j A, Alexander va, state, appokl from
Parker Two horses were ssoieu, one
belengmg 10 Smith and one 90 Shodlc.
aud separate Indictments were presented
against defendant He was acl,uttcd for
the theii OF lhe Shodle hofse aud In this
case he pleaded former jeopardy aud ac-
qulttal CiDe exception To- this plea was
sustained, His plea was former acqult.
tal not conviction, and the distinction X
defined In many decisions. Wright Va.
State, ~ o. app i6s,
Upon tho trial evidence WAS admltiad
as TO the theft Of the Shodle horse, his
evidence was admissible but Il was error
for the court 20 fail 10 charge the Jury AZ
to propose Cor which such cvldtnnN way
admitted aud could be considered nv
hy them helby vs., State, " CT App
2Ga Reversed and renanded, Opinion
by Whhe, T.,
Matt Williams VA. State. appeal from
Brown 1he defendant was convicted for
adultery Tho objection taken 20 tho 10.
dlcment ~ that as u charges the
oifenSe hY ~llaNitual carnal inttfvnurscn
h detective N not alleging t'wlthont liy-
Ing togetherr Thn Mtturellegatiun vas
not essential and the, oill OF Indictment
was sufficient.
IL was proper To allow two ~ the witt
neeses Ia the case 10 refresh their iaeino-
ries by referring ~ the notes mace or
their evidence before the grand jury
Affirmed. lftr curlam.
Jake Cnat Va, State, appeal from Pay
kcr. Tho defendant being IN triSl for
assault TO murder, Mrs. Anderson was on
The stand as a witness for the defendant
and tcstliad very iavorahly Ter hin, The
state asked her u ehe was not separated
from her husband and Il tie defendant
did not live ut her house, Over obiec-
tion she answered in tho Affirmative.
This WAS proper The state had q right
70 show the relation which sS1sttd be-
tween her and tho defendant TO show bias
and motive.
In the statement Of facts II appears
that one VI ~ PencocK WAS a
witness for the state, From an an.
dayit % Peacock II appeared that he did
not testify Ia the casn. Thiseourt cannot
inquire into this matter, the certificate Of
the trial Judge being conclusive.
The defendant, armed With a pistol,
hailed Smith, who was armed With un Ak.
Appellant raw that Smith was thus
armed and SIN provoked the difficulty,
He must have known that the combat
would be Of deadly character, and
In such case no matter 10 what
extremity hc may have hten reduced
in the combat, had he shot and killed
his adversary the killing would have
| been murder. Tho FACT that the combat
was mutual would not ipsu facic tednee
10 msnslauGhtcr. Affirmed Opinion by
| Hurt ]
i v. G.. ,James ys State, appeal from
! Lamar To authorize conviction Tor
violation Of the local option law
| Il must appear that the requisite
number Of notices OF the election
was posted III The district, Tho
evidence In this case shows that
the clerk handed one u the I'VE notices
ton citizen with Instructions 70 posi- u
This Citizen testified that he Old notdo 70
| himself, but gave " 70 his Fpn io posi-
| Now the presumption that tho clerk has
done his duty, (which obiainsNhennolhing
IL shown ~ the contrary, cannot be az
tended TO private person who u unucr
no legal obligation to discharge the duiy.
4 The evidence did not warrant me con-
yiction. Relocating granted arc ~.
yersed and rcmanded4 Opinion ny
| HUT, j..
Thomas Taylor vs. the State appeM
from Bexar. The indictment alleged 'ne
/ stolen property TO be tft property y "
y. "Woods.n Thepro0f shove tnat we
property belonged 10 u. s."Woodp This
was a fatal variance. Sec Nsiderluck'h
case, reported In THa GAxkaTs) lse'
ycrsed and remandedl OpInipnby HnrtsJ
! w. q. Baker 81 al. W.. STATE, appsh
/ from uyalde. A scise fncnv case, lne
defendant answered by general denlei,
aud that their prjgcipal We top sleh Y
attend AZ the term Vt which Tho forfeiture
was taken. The band WAS yot mir ancvu
In oyi4ience, and the court heafing wv
caee without lusy rerdessa 2 bnA Jpos.
ment by The general denial w psessslly
was imposed upon the sgte q ir5fpane-
ling the bond, that being thc very iounaA-
tea Of the uciion. -
The learned nudge ceAsuNes ar@ ~,
! g. G.. III, 10 iusan voluntary fetnfy 2,
tho pi tncipsl, aud that Is W. ptlpp'P,na,
was are sted his excase 81 eleknqss come
not avail. Whether ARRESTED or oo1, !
the princl baI attends before the jau3
ment nisi u made final, end tekes Ass,Ils
cent showing Why he did net appears he
IL entitled 10 have the forfeiture ~
aside. Reversed aud femApdea vplnlon
by HUT, J.