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

doncd the use ~ the lots as a
place Of business, IL would cvase 70 DO
his trade homestead. The court below
concluded "that when defendant rented
his yard and engaged In other pursuits,
he abandoned the same as a place OF bust
ness" II IL evident from this that the
court determined as matter OF law that
the renting aud entering upon service
operated "a an Abandonment. This Is not
y correct Wow uf the law Reversed aud
remanded. Opinion by Robcrtson,I
James Aiachon VS.. G. J. II. Raudle, ap.
peal from M6,lennan. The defsnsus tllod
were a general demurrer aud general de.
NAL, the first OF witch was not called TO
the attention Of the court. After verdict
paper styled a motion In arrest OF iudg-
nent was flled, seeking TO raise the suf.
nclency Of the description OF the land IN
pnlutiff's petition. This purpose OF such
pleading Is TO present to The court after
trial such matters as before trial
might have been presented by
demurrer, It calls IN question the
suillciency of the ayerments OF the
pleading 10 cntitle the party TO tho reliei
which no seeks. AS the description Of
the land In the petition was good on Dc.
murrer, the motion IA arrest was
properly overuled. Affirmed. opinion
by Slayton, }.
r. G, Houston VS.. Estate Of Mays, ap.
peal from Wilson. Chapter MA, title 81
Of The Revised Statutes, authorizing the
withdrawal Of an estate from admnistra-
tion, IN one respect at least changed tho
law Of 1876. The law OF 1876
did not require the delivery
Of tho estate TO the person executing the
bond until after partition. The present
statute does. The administrator appeals
In this case and complains that the conrt
erred In ordering him to deliver TO Mayea,
who made tho bond, tho whole estate
instead OF only his own share; that the
4 court did not order partition below de-
! livery; and that the order discharged the
administrator without prayer In the PEI
tItlon. None Of the grounds are well
taken. Affirmed. Opinion by Willie,
1 q, j..
THE COURT or APPEALS
! Albert johnson w State, appeal from
/ Washington. Defendant being on trial
for rape, one OF the special venlre stated
| .nha. he could read and write little, but
not much that he could read print, could
write his name, but could not read hand
writing unless II was very plainly writ
ten." Challenge for tho state for cause
was sustained and exception saved by de-
/ Tense, The juror was incompetent That
person can write his name does not III
the measure Of the requirement Of the
state that the juror shall be able to
write. The statute means that the Juror
shall be able TO express his ideas IL
words upon paper with pen or pencil,
4 Ralney w. State, 20 o., Apps, AS,
/ Another member OF the venire stated
thot he heard part OF the evidence Oh
habeas corpue, and had them formed al
opinion, but that the opinion then formed
would not influence his verdict and
! that be could, Notwithstanding sucl
former opinion, render anBimpartlal yer
diet according 10 law aud evidence The
state challenged for cause and the courl
sustained the challenge and defendant
excepted, This was an error, the juror
did not state that at the time he had {
former opinlonj but II he had, nc states
that IL wonid not influence his verdict
and this, without further explanation
tending 70 show that 1t would, show
him competent juror, Thompson Va
State, 10 CT, apps. GIL.
II was error TO allow the state 10 PROV,
the description Of person who committed
the outrage 90 given by the prosecntri,
after the occurrence. That she madi
complaint IL admissible aa part Of th'
res geetac, but her statement who did 1t
or the description Of the person, made q
the time cannot be used. Whar. Grim
/ Law sec. bG6; Blfh pGg.
There was evidence tending 10 prove
an abb, and the court charged that OF
this-issue the burden Of proof was on de
PENDANT 10 show BY @ prepnnderance o
evidence the facts establishing the alibli
\ but II defendant has shown such facts ~
raise reasonable doubt as 10 whether he
could have been present or not you vii
i hcqgit. These two proportions are IN
consistent and In direct conflict, and tn,
charge ~ erroneous. The burden W mo-
( upon defendant 70 prove an abb. Tn,
4 abb Is an attack on the presence Of de
.endant nt the commission 81 the oifense
and hence an attack on guilt. Reversed
aud reInanded. Opinion by Hurt, J
slias Ayers W. the State, appeal from
4 Washington. Ia this care aimila
charge 20 that gwen IN Johneon's cat'
above IL assigned as error. The charE,
WAS not excepted 10, but the point WA
raised 10 the motion Tor new trial. I'm
lers there II requested Il special chafg'
\ UPON allbi II Is ordinarily suiIirienll.
presented by general charge upon ~
presumption OF inuooeace and reason
abie doubt. But where exception
II taken 70 snen an ofalssiol
or special Instruction Is askes
and refused, Is Is reversible error II III
feyidence IN sAnicient 10 raise thc Issue
The charge gwen was uDquSstlonabl
wrong. An alibl Il not q speslai oifense
nor " II to It's npturc an independent
exeulpatoy fact, End the burden Of PROV
. lag II Is not upon the defendant by a pre-
. pcndersnce II The evidence,
The JpYy were told that the possession
Of property stolen, when unexplained, j
an evidence OF guilt. This y true as
I legsA proposition, but the preirmptlol
involved is a question Of fact for the c7u
, eifaeratlon OF the jury, andthe instruction
. was error Reversed ami femanded
q yinlon by White, r. ].
!, Kate Camel W.. State, appeal iron
shaekeliefd. The Indictment hclng 70
Z Keeping dls0oieiIy honee, tic state WI
: allowed VI prove. oves objection, tie a.
!, Ifcndauf'e general fepu.atlgn fos want o
n chastity. Tho issue was IS ~ the keep
+. Ling Of Il siis0rdefiy house, and not th'
/ character 81 me keeper, and the egicenes
|f'i vs. " ~ RI. III