Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-23
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopsis OF Decisions Rendered Mt the AuL
Tin Sitting OF tbs Cour of Appeals.

Synopsis OF Decisions Rendered Mt the AuG- |
tin Sitting OF tbs Cour of appeals.
Elliot Dooley VS., State, appeal from
Bexar The only question is, Is the in
strument alleged TO have been forged such
as is within the meaning OF our statue .;
forgery, II is telegram dated at San
Antonio, addressed to Mrs J.. L. Edwards
at Austin, purporting to be signed by j.
w. Mcknight, and In the following words
"I.aura IL dead. Send SIS 90 for her re-
mains Georgia and mother win come
with the body. Send money to 5. B.
Wilcox, No. 2l0 EastlC0mmercc street"
Held it Is clear that 'moneyn was the
object of this instrument. 1t was in legal
effect an order by Mcknight upon Mrs.
Edwards in favor of Wilcox for the
amount mentioned. This brings 1t within
the meaning Of the statute, and II true, is
such an instrument as would create
pecuniary obligation. 7. Q. art 1915
Morris VS.. State, II ct app. $50; Coastley
VS. State, IA CT. app. l66, Motion Tor re-
hearing refused. Opinion by wilson, D.
Glen Pierce vs. State, appeal from
Grayson. II the pistol was used by the
defendant to strike with only, the assault
would not be aggravated unless the EVIL
dence showed that when used in that man
ner II was deadly weapon. II the PTS
tol when used TO strike with was notsucn
q weapon, and while beng so useu was
accidentally discharged, whereby serious
bodily injury was inflicted, and II tne
assault was not committed with premeai-
tated design and by TIE use OF means CAL
culated TO infict serious bodily injury,
and Il no serious injury was inficted by
the stroke, then the assaults OF no nignei
grade than simple assault.
The charge upon self-deiense Wa
deficient in emitting TO charge the law
embraced In arts. $40, 57l, 572, 57S, Ken
dali VS.. State, ct. app. 500; " CT app
l2G, =,
forcibly eject the injured person from
the rambling room the court are OF opln'
| ion M snc6 right existed. The law
Knows no reasonable rules or regulations
| for the i, nroteetiop 81 gambling room
Reeve, .sad and rernanded. Opinion Q!
7 bomas Gather VS., State, appeal ifoI,
III Js The Indictment contains ~
omnts the first for theft and the secon'
,os receiving stolen property Inc Jug
-, recites that "the defendant 70 W
n rIvr therein Of theft Of ayearhng pieaoe
not suilty.n The verdict iinos nun !, 4 W., Wv
@ss charged in the second count, ,,oa a.
.he ;ndpment Is that heis guilty oil lleit {,
There are two errors held ret ,..sud
AT the nles Of not guilty only in,eu y
10 Tie one count charging theili Mll',s ~
verdIct d on the count charging Isoe.rin !,
second. the verdict Is for reoelNlns =
nc second count, and the lndgnen' ~ y
,he arst count for theft Either OF sSe,
! e rr are fatal. Reversed ana remanuo'
0oiulon by White, T. J. .a., f,o,
Marx Harwel vs.. STATE apps 80 that
Falls. This is a companion case ~ snS,
: Gsither lust reported, though lne A TING,
!. ,.ss dif.sreut and different owner. my
h 49, two counts as in the other cass =.
2 were az badly mixed, the pea ap ",
( only 10 one count and that nov .he , o,,e
a which The verdict was found. ssre,
q r,ea o. nnot guilty. would pc p.eSIe ~
!. ne courts. but the plea being sPeosns
: s snv anilty 10 theft,n il cannot palss !.
ssns an ne countfo receiving, heFSp .
! lss S se M opinion by White, =.
n IN M shubert vs. .State,appeai ron ~ ne,
q convIctlon for THEFT OF horses. -,
lie senseipleaded that this was tne ssnS ~ ~
10 n as for which defendant hau Ds
81 49, sssaS nnder an Indictment Tor melt .
nj s su'.'tns' from range; that he hed oeen
N or,tte6 Of me theft end 'conSlc'su
49,