Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-10

the watch-chain, said he got 1t In the
| scrimmage. He left the chain In the "a.
loon. He was convicted for theft of ire
chain. This evidence does not show thai
at the time OF the change Of possession
there was in the mind OF the defendant an
intent TO deprive the owner OF The chain
and appropriate the same to his own use
or benefit. Reversed and remanded
Opinion by White, p. j.
George Myers VS.. State, appeal from
Falls. Where the record shows that
the Judge presiding at the trial was Judge
OF another district, and was doing go In
exchange with the regular Judge, the
authority Is sufficiently shown. 1t is not
necessary In such cases TO make and en-
ter formal order declaring the exchange
OF districts by the judges.
The defense requested the court TO
charge as follows: can unrecorded brand
is no evidence Of ownership, and as the
brand OF Bryan has not been recorded. II
will be no evidence of ownership in Rryan
to the steer In controversy, and unless
such steer has been proved by other evil
dence beyond reasonable doubt to be the
property Of Bryan, you will acooit y
This instruction unquestlonably Is the
law, and the evidence demanded thai n
should be given. Coffelt VS.. State, 10 CT
app. 435. Reversed and remanded. Opin-
ion by Wilson, j.
Irwin hurry VS.. State, appeal from
Williamson. This convection is for muir.
der In the first degree and punishment
aXed at death. The return of the sheriff
TO the writ Of special venire not showing
why he had struck seven names from the
list motion WIS made to quasb the
writ. The motion was denied, and the
state over objection had the sheriff TO
amend his return. This was not error
The return was amendable and no preiu-
dice Is shown. 8 CT. App. 377; l5 Ct.
app. 249. Nor was the defendant enti-
tied to one day after such amendment be-
lore he could be compelled to go to trial.
inc names of all the persons "sum-
moned" were served upon him.
1t is insisted that it was error TO fail in
proceeding to impanel the Jury, to have
the names of those summoned called at
the door, and to require such as were
present to be seated in the box and
so give defendant an opportunity
to have attachments for those not
present &c. C. p. art. GlS). 1t is also
complained that the court did not call up
ana swear all those present, and test
their qualifications and hear excuses: or
ahord defendant an opportunity of know
ing VINO were present &c. c. p. arts. 6lg;
gu; 62l) The court called each Juror
singly and tested his qualifications, and
passed tnem to the state and defendant
TO be accepted or rejected. The courts
attention was called to this matter and
exception taken The action of the court
was IN direct contravention of the law.
and tla nnagfiCn fg 4I.
oil the articles cited above mandatory or
directory? The decision is thst thev are
preliminary steps to the trial of the quail
tilcation OF the jury, and are directory.
ana no injury beng shown, refusal to
follow them is not reversible error, citlng
Cooley's Con. Lin. SO and SO; Hurford
VS.. City OF Omaha, Neb. 1856; wilkins
VS.. State, 8 ct. app. 42O. Affirmed.
Opinion by White, p. j.
James Murray and j. A. Anthony VS.. |
state, appeal from McLennan. The in |
formation charged that defendants did
willfully aud mischieyously
lnJure and destroy the personal property |
OF the Missouri Pacific Railway company. |
by williully and mallclously putting out
the IRE in an engine, and by LETTING ont |
tue water and wasting ana DESTROYING the
water IN said engine, and by displacipn
the connections and machinery of said |
engine in such manner as to render il
unfit for use by said company or its |
agents, etc. This information is based |
on Art. GS3, 2, c. The court saws
" This is case of first impression in the |
judicial history of the state, and one in |
which every fair intendment should be |
made IN the protection of property rights
and in maintaining the supremacy of law |
and order. But however great the |
wrong and injury, this court cannot |
establish precedent for Furnishing
crime not cognizable under the |
statute Article 6S3 does not
cover the acts charged In
the information, and the article is re-
strlcted to injuries done to agricultural
properly or products either real or ner
ssohal' The information charges no of
tense, and the Judgment of conviction is
reversed and the prosecution dismissed
opinion by White, p. j. INote-the as
!, s.anU encouragement has filed mo-
ton for rehearlng.
Joseph f. Edwards VS.. the State, appeal
rom bell In prosecution for obstruct-
ny puoic road 1t is not error for the
you[ , Ia us charge to instruct as to the
esal erect of the orH--s of the comfy
tis, DUETS t , G. = is strictly
me road was an established public
'oau before defendant became the owner
d the land over which it was located He
,annot complain or justify on the ground
nat neither he nor his vendor had been
The rights OF his vendor
n t1e premises did not pass to him wits
ne land Affirmed. Per curtain.
MOTION
Recognzance.-The defendant stslJs \
'narged and was convicted for
me ottense of "unlawfully exhibiting
certain gaming bank called monte for
ne purpose of gaming" The recon.
nance recites that he stands charged
win the offense of exhibiting a monte
'ank." This describes no offense
s the gist of the offense is that if was
.Sd.id ,'ior the purpose of gaming.n
dotion to dismiss appeal sustained, {
Mave been using Tongallne, and am
vel pleased with its results; it super.
edes all other so-called rheumatic RENE.