Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-23

"When person found in possession OF
property recently stolen, when first found
In possession OF 1t or when his title
thereto is first called in question, gives a
reasonable and probable explanation con-
sistent with his innocence, such explains
ton rebuts the presumption OF guilt aris-
ing from such recent possession, d 1t
devolves upon the prosecution to prove
that such explanation is false" 1t Is in
sisted that the court should have made
direct application OF this rule to the
facts bea ing upon the matter. Held,
that the charge above was full, fair and
sufficient Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Texas Express Company vs.. j. Z. Heff
ner. Appeal from Tarrant county. The
son OF appellee had been employed by an
agent of appellant, Said son of appellee
deposited $500 with said agent to indem-
nifty appellant against any loss hat might
occur through his dishonesty or negli-
gence. Tie contract was repudiated, APP
pellee's son discharged, and the agent of
appellant falls and refuses to repay said
deposit. This suit is brought to recover
said deposit. There was verdict for
plainrff In the court below. Appellant in.
ssts that this agent acted beyond the
scope OF his authority, that all persons
were repaired TO give bond TO secure the
company, etc, that said agent had no
authority to accept monied security iu-
stead Of bond. 1t was error 70 the
court to exclude evidence of Witness
| Smith that appellee's son presen ed to
witness Tor payment several Of Heffner's
personal due bills, which witness refused
to pay but spoke to Thomas, the agent,
alb ut 1t, when Thomas told witness to
casn due bills OF Hetfner as he was we'll
secured against loss by Heffner.
This should have been admitted in
view OF the defense set out
IL was error for the court
to exclude the evidence OF the superiuten-
dent If appellant company, to the effect
that the agent had no authority to ac-
cept money security in lieu of bond.
Appellants claim the deposit was per-
sonal matter between Thoma. and Heff-
ner, and this evidence should have been
admitted. Appellee can not recover
interest on deposit unit January / 1t be-
ing an open account. Reversed and re-
manded. Hurt, j.
George Mccormick vs.. the State. APP
| pealed from BeXar county. When q con-
tlnuarce is asked for the purpose of pro
curing testimony which is improbable
and in direct conflict with the weight of
evidence, the continuance IS properly re-
fused. The special charge asked by de-
Tense, that II the jury believed defendant
obtained the money by personating au
officer, and Adams believing him to be an
officer, suffered him to take his money,
was p operly refused by the court. There
Is no reversible erro-. Affirmed Hurt, j
G. w. Boyett VS.. the State. Appeal
from Taylor county. In this case there
was change of venue on the motion OF
the district attorney, from Nolan county to
Taylor county. L. is con ended that he
should have removed the course to the
nearest county seat to Nolan county.
Held, that the district judge had the right
TO send the case u any county within his
district. When the jury separate by con-
sent of parties and OF the court, some
misconduct must be shown, or
this court Will not reverse
on that ground alone A state
ment made by witness under the rule,
who had not been arrested, was admis.
slblc. When the jury delivered their YER
dict they were discharged. Within half a
minute utter this, while some were still
IN rank, II was discovered that the YER
dict was informal, and they were immedi.
ately recalled and the error cured, to
which defendant raises objection. There
was evidently no injury to the rights OF
defendant, hence no reversible error.
Affirmed. Hurt, j.