Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-16

this does not fall within the definition OF
sn aggravated assault. Carter was fined
S26 Held BY the court: That the infor-
nation is sufficient. There was no ex-
ception to the charge, and no Instructions
were requested, there was no error in the
conviction. Affirmed.
Doyle vs.. the State; Brown. Charge
by information with stealing bes-gum.
The evidence in the case is wholly cir
cumstsntlal. 1t WAS shown that
the defendant was tracked by the
honey streWn along his path to q
place in the woods where he had rested
from his labor Of packing the gum, and
where ne hsd robbed the gum, leaving
behind several sacks and also piece CT d
sack, from whence he WAS tracked by
horse tracks for five miles, where his pur-
suers came up on him lying under Q
wagon asleep. On being awakened, WAS
told that ne was tracked. He denied
taking the gum, but he had been eating
honey aud several 70 ng bees and four
racas we're found near the wagon. Also
a rack to which the piece found at the
gum fitted exactly. Defendant was &C.
cused Of the theft, his boot tracks were
1 measured, ard On being requested
to 60 back ard compare
his boots to the tracks
made at the gum,he refused saying he De-
damned ifhe was going five miles to meas
ure tracks; the time was June, 1887. The
defendant did not deny his guilt nor did
he explain how the honey and yourg
bees came to be at his camp. Itwss
moved that the verdict be set aside be.
cause Of errors in the charge, and because
the evidence was not sufficient. Held by
the court: l. That the charge lot being
excepted to, and no fundamental error in
that given, there WAS no error. 2. That
the evidence is sufficient. Affirmed.
Williams VS.. the Stste; from Llsno.
Charged with aggravated assault upon
Mrs. Synns Fox, a female, by rudely
slappiDg her on the breast. The facts as
testified to by the witness are: That she
was about thirty years old and the de-
fendant about ftty-five or sixty; that she
was assistant pcs.mistress at Blufftown
and handed defendant cut his m,il on the
day CT the assault; defendant asked her
if she did not want to buy some sweet
potatoes. She told him no. Whilst she
was standing talking to him, he had in
his hand folded newspaper she had
handed him, and defendant struck her on
the breast and side with the newspaper,
and then caught her left hand with his
right hand, pulled it up and touched his
mouth to 1t. She asked him what he
wanted, and he replied he wanted to bite
her. Defendant was fined $25. Held
by the court: That the evidence is
sufficient, the charge very favorable, and
there Is no error in the conviction.
Affirmed.
Moore VS.. the State; Hood county.
Charged with fs,se Imprisonment of one
William Barnett, the main facts being:
There WAS bad feeling between the Moore
and Barnett families shout some cotton
alleged to have been stolen from the field
Of the former by the children OF the latter.
There seems to have been settlement Of
the matter, but it was reopened By the
Moores, and they forcibly detained Bsr-
nett for half an hour, cursing and abusing
him, so his testimony is; after which an
instrument was produced, called lie bill,
and Barnett was compelled by the de-
PENDANT and others with him to sign
it. The defendant was convicted, fined
s25 and sixty days in jail. Held by the
court: TIE evidence sustains the con-
viction. The charge OF the court is sub
stsntislly correct, and though the charge
may not be strictly correct, additional H.
structions were not asked. Affirmed.
Bundy vs. the State; from Brewster
county. Charge of robbery from one
Nations Of 81. Seven years In the peni-
Tertiary. Held by the court: That the
Indictment is coed. There is no state
ment Of facts or bills of exceptions. The
charge Of the court is erroneous, but the
error is not fundamental. Affirmed.
Woodall We. the State; Ersth. Charged
with theft Of horses. The defendant was
convicted and his punishment fixed at
ten years. The ownership and posses
sion OF the horse WAS alleged to be in one
j. Long. The proof developed thst at
the time the horses were stolen they were
in possession of Orr & Rodman for the
purpose Of being strayed. On the trial
the defendant asked special charge to
the effect that if Orr & Rodman had taken
the horses up with the intention of estray-
ing them, then they should acquit
the defendant-this wac refused by the
court. Held: That there was no vari-
ance as to the ownership and possession.
Affirmed.
Steele vs.. the State; Hood. Indictment
for unlawfully obstructing public road.
There are some conclusions OF law and
fact In the record, and the assistant At |
tUTucy- 0cucEdl luslSls budb tuebC uO uUL
take the place of statement of
facts in criminal cases. Held by
the court: No statement of facts
and there is no error apparent of record. |
Affirmed.
McKelvy VS.. Stste; from Mason. In
dictment for theft OF horse. A motion |
for continuance WAS made and overruled |
by the court. The Assistant Attorney
General contends that no notice can be |
taken Of that action of the court because |
no exceptions were taken to 1t by the |
defendant. The motion for continuance
was used as evidence on the trial without
objection. Held by the court: That the |
evidence and charge are sufficient, and
there is no error in the conviction. Al
Armed.
knights of Honor.
CLEVELAND, OHIO, Msy 15-At yester-
days session Of the Supreme Lodge Of
Knights Of Honor, several changes were