Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-29

o commit E. fe'nrY or theft. R.yerst &
ard remandtd. Wilson, J.
William TestaI0 vs. ghe State; Sppeal
from &C.. z7Iea. Conviction for nuydaT
| |. While II .nay Sppear ttst the eGmis
sion of certslD testimony IL lrreguisr ard
| improper, il must sleo appear skag its s d.
| mission pre- ja1iced, or migGt probably
/ have injured defendant, IN order for this
court revise the ectlon Ct 5he court be-
| lew in admitting same . Before this
court will rcvise the Iu'.IEs Of q tri.i
Judge in the mission OF testimony hD5
p-cnouT c. the same trrCpsous, II must
clearly apDetr that tbs. trial judge las
! abuse1 the discretion zoe haed 20 tin BY
!sw, sud that def3Ddsa. has been pro
5ly f1iqred thereag: s. Misconduct OF
tie Jury Is not ground ter Few f1fSl,
unless 1t IL shown so have fbeep such as
ft c;ed the fsiTnees OF The tIiGi. AT
filmed. Wilson, J.
msrtin Hin re VS.. Ssm Holmes; screSi
from Anderson. l.. Where the evidence
| is contradictory end aoI fctirg. /. is the
peculisr provi"ce CT the Jury to pass
upoa tAe ssne, Gnd wrNre tGeir is evil
teucs TO sustain their ii ldirg, this court
will not Yevise the game. NJ reversible
SsFCE. Il III lutG' l4i6cEs IL
Csc. GLADDEN. vs.. the State; appeal from
Williamson. Conviction for theft OF q
horse. l. Defendants explanation OF his
posse ssion OF the horae being suspicious,
The Jury might well conclude that SAID
explanation WAS untrue and unreason-
snle. .. The evidence 20 20 an Hlibi was
ior the consideration Of the jury, and that
| Issue wss isir!y submitted by the court
| !or their determination ard they have
fcund sgsinst appellant. No reversible
erro1. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
John Melon vs. the State; 1ppesi from
Archer county. On motion for rehearir G.
| After s careful recor sideration It is con-
cluded by tie court, that there was no
error in toe court below thsE would war
reas reye, sal CT this case. The charge
IS whole WAS corr CT. The motion is
| tverruled Wilson, j.
| ST Louis, Arkansas and Ttx.s Railway
VS.. john Sandal ct 81; error from Bowie
county. l a railway company that en-
ploYes & contractor is jointly liable to-
| gether with ssic contractor for sll ties,
| etc, furnished for the use OF sid road
9, A County court hiss Jurisdiction 10
render 9 judgment Of foreclosure of s
| len on the Equipments" of q railway.
We understand tast Equipments" OF o
roll say mesn and embrace .he personal
property only Of the same 8. It Is mot
valid objection thxt the judgment does
30. name any particular property TO b.
evied upon. No error. Affirmed. Will
SOD, j.
Alexander Menly VS.. the STATE; appeal
from Webb. Conviction TOR murder in
the second degree. l. On motion fol
change Of venue, the defendant would
have the rIget 20 prove the existence Of
the prejudice by any witness beoides The
sMdsvit OF his compurgstors, and on the
cIner hand, the STATE would have the rien'
to prove that NO such prejudics did II
fact exist. The supporting sfisnts csr
be Thoroughly tested IS to their means o.
knowledge by either party. 2. One msr
who begins 3 quarrel, or brings en- q III
cal.V with the felonious purpose to Ri
The person assumed end accomplishing
such purpose, is guilty Ct murder anC
cannot av.il himself Of the doctrine o.
self defense. This well settled rule csr
riea with It, in its very bosom, the newt
able corollsry that II 3 quarrel be begun