Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-23

is2 trrder this rule the above facts did
not authorize recovery against the
co;ppauy. Reversed and reminded, Opin-
ion by White, 7 j.
Blum vs. the state, appeal from Ma
vsrro. Convection Tor swindiing under
article 40, p. c. The facts we're that ae-
4 PENDANT had been in the habit OF buying
goods On a credit lie had used IN ms
/ busiaess as a grocer and baker ABOUT
$500 belonging TO his wife ana step
! darpliter. To secure tho latter, or 10 pay !
1 them. defendant executed deed Of sale
AZ his property This deed was executed
/ 10 the forenoon Of the 81 st Of December,
and defendant left IL with the clerk for
record asking The clerk 10 say nothing
obout H. That same day defendant : |
wife and her father bought |
large quantities OF goods regardless
lof v,rice. and had Nem charged |
10 defendant Defendant WIS not
present at any Of these purchases
though nc seems TO have sent his shop |
boz 70 the prosecutor 60 hurry up the
goods bought Of him ~ the time the
PROSECUTOR sold the goods he was still OF
. the impression and belief that defendant
! owned the property, aud would not have
1 extended him the credit had he known OF
. k.he sale by defendant TO his wife, Held,
that these facts did not warrant con-
e yicliou. No false prctenses Ia words are
e claimed TO have heen made by defendant
4 he was not present In person when the
goods were obtained, and no false pre-
Il lenses and declarations are shown To
b have been made by the wife and father
+ in-law, who acted as his agents. That
the prosecutor was OF the opinion
that defendant still owned the
Goods and made the sale upon that
belief, cannot affect the question unless
!, the acts OF the parties purchasing the
y goods induced that belief at the time
e rhe prosecutor sole the goods 10 error,
y and d knowledge that he was acting upon
!. such belief without CORRECTING it viii not
" subject the d. PENDANT or his agents TO
= Charge Of having madea false pretense.
> Reversed and dismissed Opinion by
a White, z j.
q wiley Anderson vs.. the State, appeal
y from Rusk Convection for forgery OF
an instrument in writing as follows;
"Georee Woods Martin Boysinger says
TO let Wiley Anderson nave $40 worth OF
goods, and he Will stand for it." There
was no signature Held, that to consti-
10 tute forgery the instrument must be such
as II true would create, in
crease, diminish, discharge or de-
M feat pecunary obligation, or would
m transfer or in some manner affect prop
!. erty p. c.. i8l), and such Instrument
- must be valid, if genuine, for the pur-
ne pose intended If void or invalid on its
m face, IL cannot be made good by aver
mt ment The instrument Ia this case, wish
OF out aid from eXtrnsic evidence, would
or not II genuine, be sufficient 20 charge
We Baysinger or anyone else, and the con
= viction was wrong Reversed and dis
~ missed. Opinion by Wilson, j
ks Wiley Anderson We. the State, appea
d from Rusk. This Is a conviction for ut
Id tering or passing the same instrument az
he set out IN the case supra This iustru
lr- meut not being such as viii support
BE prosecution for forgery, IL will not sup
SIS bort one for knowingly passing forgeC
so lnstrum Mt. / may be that the acts o
Ia def ndout in writing or using this instru
as ment would constitute the offense o
en- swindliug Reversed and dismissed
all opinion by Wilson, j.
I'd w BrJ son vs. the State, appeal froI
ed Gonzales A biz OF exceptions show
lily that the district attorney used the follow
IL, ing language in argument "During la.
a year eight colored females and five whit
ok females were ravished and murdered
NJ the city of Austin. That an honest ca
yet penter had gone to bed and in the nigl
IAN Some hellish william like the defendant
-cl ravished and killed his wife and left h
: Is in Il nude condition for the Mortified POI
the ulace to gaze upon" The defence oil
cts ected aud asked instruction that the jul
am ne instructed that they should not be Il
Ugh 1uenced by such argument. The cou
hui refused To interfere The conviction W;
DOL for rape Held, that in cas-
ost OF rape especially, no improp
OF means should be resorted to to prelude
eak the minds Of the jury against defendan
of in the remotest degree. "This court h
hat often corrected such errors by revers
xas of the judgments obtained in such metho
n a and in this case we feel constrained to
ele- so, because in our Judgment the remar
Fort excepted to were outside the eyidenC
and were calculated TO inflame the min
ar of the Jury and excite their prejudice u
lhl duly against the defendant" Che {
out csion is rested solely upon this poin
,uld Reversed and remanded. opinion
Hurt, j.
ID Jas. S. Kirk VS.. l.. A. Ellis ct al, app,
ad- from Galveston bill of eNceptio
lger shows that no Jury for the term had he
aud returned by the jury commissioners, a
ious that the sheriff, under order from
lcnt court, summoned the jury. 1t is CO
plan planned that neither the sheriff or any
aud the deputies were first sworn under
uul statute. Afl, oOoO IL. -, allcr
ould jurors summoned had been in attendal
'tual for two days, the court administered
ased oath to the sheriff and ordered him
again summon jurors. The sheriff d
summoned the same jurors, who W
atita sworn aud empaneled over object
Bit III, Uruer suS wy ~ hounusiso
ware ui'ioy' Q, ~ ~ az" tlS /,
I or w, ns eous0 iepo,sou - ~. So".
lanu ~ SUI ' 49,. SV'i', no. ~ va
sons w ule panel N'"iuieu' = el Nuli"m'