Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-25

the act to the legislature. The
proclamation converting the legislature
stated one purpose to be ITO reduce the
taxes, both ad vaiorem and occupation,
etc. This seems to embrace the whole
subject OF taxation, aud TO authorize any
and all such legislation upon that SUD
iect as should be deemed necessary by
the legislature and authorized the
legislature to levy tax upon proper
" or occupations not before taxed. Al
frmed. Opinion by Wilson, j.
W.T.. Bohny vs.. State, appeal from
Dallas.
The decision of this court in the case Of
Flood VS.. State, 10 ct. app. 5s4 is decls-
i've of this case. The fact that the city OF
Dallas has a special charter granted by 8
special act, while the charter Involved in
the Flood case was under the general law
relating to cities and tOwne, does not in
the opinion of the court affect the ques-
ton. The case Of Kurtz VS.. People, 33
Mich. 279, cited by Judge Hurt 10 his dis
sentirg opinion in the Flood case
and relied upon by counsel in this case,
is not regarded as being in point. That
decision was correct when considered
with reference to the statute construed
by It, but has no bearing on the question
in this case. under this decision the
city OF Dallas cannot regulate the closing
OF saloons and business houses on Sun
day. Affirmed. Opinion by Wilson, j..
judge Hurt dlssents.
Gus Bramlette VS.. the State, appeal
from Bexar. This was convection for
assault and intent TO murder, the person
assaulted being the wife OF defendant.
The prosecution called the wife as a wit
ness. She stated that she was defend
ants wife, that she was unwilling TO
testify against him, and refused TO do so.
Objection of defense was overruled and
the wife compelled TO testify. Held, the
wife Of defendant is a competent
witness against the husband when
the offense charged is one COM
mitted against ner. Whenever q witness Is
competent to testify, such witness can De
forced to do so. In this case there was
no error in forcing the wife to testify.
Dumas VS.. State, IA CT. app, 4G5; Turner
VS.. State, 60 Miss, SOL. Affirmed
Opinion by White, p j.
Murray and Antony vs.. State, appeal
from McLennan. On motion for rehear-
ing, The court adhere to the decision in
this case, previously reported, that
killing an engine" is not an offense
under Art 6S3. In the course Of very
elaborate opinion Presiding Judge White
remarks; eve deem the question of
punctuation wholly immaterial, and wish
1t to be understood that the matter of
punctuation never entered, in the most
remote degree, into the discussion and
decision of the case as shown by our
previous opinion. On the contrary we
recognize the rule given in Art. 3l39 r
s., that grammatical errors shall not
vitiate law, and in no
case shall the punctuation of
law control or affect 1.-THE
intention of the legislature in the en-
actment; and hold 1t applicable alike to
criminal statutes as well as to civil -
Motion for rehearing overuled Judge
Hurt dissents, he did not participate 10
the former decision.
Sam Besll VS.. State, appeal from Erath.
The defendant called the witness Miller,
and she testified as his witness. She
did not testify to any fact which vas in
furious to defendant. Under these cir
cumstances it was not error to refuse to
allow the defense to put to the witness
questions calculated to impeach the wit
ness, and which were irrelevant for any
other purpose. 1t is only where defend
ant has been injuriously affected by his
own witness tnat he will be allowed to
impeach, Affirmed. Per curtain
Cliff Cook VS.. State, appeal from Bexar.
| The provision of our law that the
wife cannot testify AGAINST her
husband in criminal prosecu-
ton does not render inadmi sble
the acts and declarations of the wife,
which are res geste. In this case the
acts and declarations Of the wife occurred
| Just preceding, during, aud Immediately
after the shooting which resulted in the
homicide. The evidence, as developed In
this case, shows that the husband and
wife acted together 10 The commission OF
the offense. Under these circumstances
such acts and declarations of the wife
were clearly admissible as res gestu
against the husband This rule of res
gestn oyerrides all other rules govern.
Ing the admission of evidence.
Before making the statement which
was used in evidence by the state as dy,
ing declaration, the wounded man said
'he was going to die, and asked for q
priest" This he continuously repeated
This was sufficient to establish the predi
cate that he was conscious of approach
ing death. Affirmed Opinion by White
L