Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-15
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synepses Of Decisions Rendered at the
Austin Sitting OF the HIGHER
Courts Of Ttxss.
supreme Court and Court CT Appeals Fin a
inss-Dscisions Made IN Some LonX
Continued Csees.
Court of AppeslD

Correspondence of the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX. May 1O.-J. B. Price
vs.. the State; from Parker. county. Az
pellant Was indicted in the District cour,
February II, 1857, for having on the 25.h
OF October, A. D. 1856, did unlawfuIly
wager and bet with one Will Chew upon
the result Of & publ election to be there
after held for the purpose of electine
public officers, and fined S25. He sp-
pealed and the stGte moved to dismiss
the appeal because the recognizance re.
cites that appellant is charged with bet
ting on public election only,
an entirely different otiense
than the ore charged. Held BY
the court: That the recognizsnce ia insult.
hcient. DIETING on an election" Is not
an ofense unless it be al election for an
officer. Dismissed.
A S. Parrot ct al. VS.. W. J. Craig,
jack county. The appelles's move to
dismiss the appeal in this cause on the fol.
lowing: l. Appellants did not make their
motion for new trial in the court below
as the law requires. 2. Appellants did
not fill cir assignments OF error in this
csuse within twenty days after the
adj lurnment of the term of
court from which said appeal was taken.
(S)-A9pellsnts did not f e any assign.
meIts Of error in this Cause as the law
directs. Held by the court: Neither a
motion for d new trial, or assignment of
errors is essential 10 an appeal. Motion
refused.
Wilson VS.. the State; Mason. Wilson
WAS indicted March, 1887, who being
engaged in the slaughter and sale of
animals for market, did fail to report
to the Commissioners court of
the county, the number, color, sge,
sex. marks and brands OF every
auimsl slaughtered by him, he WAS 11ed
$50 and appealed 10 this court. TIE
sta moves TO dismiss the appeal in this
cause; because: l. The recognizGrce
recites no eff 5nse, the offense denounced
and with which defendant is charged is
failiGg to report tae sale and slaughter c.
animals, etc under article 75G, Pensl
Code. The recited offsnse Is falling to
make report of animals slaughtered.
Held by the court: The recpgnz.uc .sSal
Falling TO make reporsSS0f
animals Slaughtered is no offence. Af8eal
dismissed.
E. L, DignoTltty vs.. the States$yal
Verde. Appellant was indicted for H,l
ing to work public road, uader Art 4fI,
P. G the recogniz,nce reCiSes willfully
isiling to attend either in person or sub.
stitute st the time and place designated
oy the rosd oyergeer Of his precinct after |
being lawfully summoned. Ca motion OF |
The state to dismiss the appeal, the court |
,eld: That the recognizarcs recises no |
'ffense against the laW. Appeal dis |
missed.
Palmer and Wife, guardians OF John B. |
Palmer, vs.. F. A. Piper & Co.; UyGlde
county. This is writ of error
prosecuted by the appellants from q |
Judgment of the County court |
against their ward. Motion to dismiss
.he writ OF error is made, embracing:
Il } Because the writ Of error is detec-
ave in thst it fails TO command The Sheriff |
20 summons two Of the defendants IN
error, Geo. Horner and S. J. Newton.
2 } Because the Wrii Of error is not au-
.henticated by the seal Of the officers By
whom it WAS issued. Held by the court:
That the grounds of the motion are well
AIKEN. and the writ of error is dismissed
Flank Hathaway vs.. the Stste; PaJkert
county. Appellant WAS charged and
for playing at game
With csrds, in q room
attached to house for retailing spirit
aus liq % 8. The recogniz nee re cites ne
9 charged with gaming. The state moves
o dismiss the appeal because the offense
s recited in the recoenizance is no Of
snse, and different one from tina.
hsrged in the information. Held by
he court: The recognizance isinsufficient
Gaming" is not specific offense. Ao.
zeal dismissed.