Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-18

4 AASAo' \1/s Az 40 NV AC(CSb6Iy W VcCIuS
the question whether the road had been
legally established, where obstructed
which is quite doubtful. (2). The evil
dence being insufficient to support the
verdict, the Judgment Is reversed and
remanded. Hurt, Judge.
Trumbull vs.. the State; Jones county,
Conviction of murder in the frst degree
with life sentence affixed Sc the penalty.
Held: There ia but one reasonable
conclusion to be deduced from the evil
dence that is, that the homicide was sn IS
ssssinstien, q deliberate killing ectuated
by malice express. There is no evidence
even tending to show the existence of f.c 8
which would reduce the homicide to
murier.in the second degree or nanslaugh-
ter; At the time the deceased was shot, he
WAS STOPPING down dipping water from a
spring-ne was unsrmed and in his shirt
sleeves. He had his child with him. De-
PENDANT was ~ feet sway and his presence
evidently was not known to deceased
Affirmed. Wilson, Judge.
Pool vs.. the. State; McCollock county
Conviction for ! horse theft. The
only inculpatory evidence against
defendant on the trial WAS
that Of the witness Horace Hunter and
his testimony raises strong presumption
that he was an sccomplice .er psrticpes
criminis in The theft OF the horse. II go
there is no confederation Of his testimony
Held: That the evidence disclosed in the
record Is insufficient to support the con.
viction; reversed and remended. White,
presiding judge.
Croen VS.. the Slate; Robertson county.
Conviction for keeping open q barroom
on the day OF an election. Counsel for
defendant requested charge 10 the
effect that if the jury believed from the
evidence that defendant went into his
saloon for any other purpose than that
OF business connected with his
saloon, they should End him not guilty.
Held: There was no error in refusing
this charge. l. There was no evidence
tending in the slightest to show that de-
PENDANT opened his saloon for any other
purpose than that connected with the ea-
loon business. 2 It Is not necessary
to show that the accused sold or gave
away malt or Intoxicating liquors, because
II this is shown he would be guilty of vio-
lating the law whether the saloon wss
open or not. II In case of necessity the sa
loon man should desire Ice, lemons, OF any
other articles for his family or any other
purpose and entered for this purpose Of
procuring the same, by making proof CT
these fac!s the court would be required to
instruct the jury thereon; but ia the alb
sence Of such facts the court is not re-
CURED to charge upon imaginary theories.
Affirmed. Hurt, Judge.
MatIock vs.. the State, McLennaa coun-
ty; theft of CIV. Webb, the owner,
lost the cow from the range about Octo-
Der l, 1881. Cripper bought the COW
from appellant and Jef Mstlock in 1883,
about October l, they driving her into his
butcher pen in East Waco. Held: That
the possession Of the animal charged to
have been stolen Is too remote to call
upon appellant for an explanation. Re-
versed and remanded. Hurt, judge.
Kemp VS.. the State, Robertson comfy;
conviction foc an aggravated assault and
battery upon the person of Susan Garrett
in connection with others acting together,
Kemp being an adult male and Susan a
female. A woman In the act Of
committing simple assault and
battery upon another female,
an adult male person, without solicita-
ton on the part OF the ASSEMBLING woman,
without her knowledge, intrudes himself
into the difficulty and joins in the assault,
in such case the assaulting woman cannot
certainly be held snswerable fo- tie acts
OF the adult male in which she does not
concur. Her liability IS q principal in
such case Is determined not by the acts
and intent OF the male person, but by her
own ect and intent. Reversed and re-
manded. Wilson, Judge.
Nicholson vs.. the State ofTsxas; Falls.
Charge .nd conviction of adultery with
one Ella Stewart, q married woman, by
having hsbitual carnsl intercourse with
her without living together with her.
The proof WAS that defendant is q single
man and took his meals at his fathers
hotel in Marin, and HIla Stewart is a
married woman, separated from her hus-
band, snd Wss cooking around Marlin,
and took her meals where she WAS cook
Ing. That defendant and Ellis Stewart
occupied ths same room st night and
slept in the same bed in this room; the
defendant asked . charge to the eject
that defendant could not be convicted If
from the evidence they believed that the
defendant snd Ella Stewart were living
together at the time the adultery is al
legged to have been committed, although
they may find they did have hsbitusl
carnal Intercourse. This Was refused
by the court and charge excepted to, and
this refusal is assigned as error. Held:
The evidence and charge are sufficient
The question rs to "iiying together" Wsg
submitted to the jury. ard the evidence
supports the AIDING that they were not
living together. Affirmed.
Robertson vs. SCHNEIDER Davis; mo-
ton to dismiss appeal. In this case the
motionIof sppellees 10 dismiss the appeal
because OF the insudaciency Of the appeal
bond, because the same is not payable to
Tom Bell, and he Is one Of the defend
ants to said suit Held: Bell Is a party
to the suit and is 8 necessary party de-
fendan! in error, and bond should be
payable to him az well as the other plain
tits in error. Dismissed.
Edwards vs.. the State, Fayette county.
Appellant was convicted of an assault
with intent to murder one Willis Dulix,
Re was sentenced to two years imprison-
ment in the penitentisry. The third as
Segment Of error presents this charge of
the court as error: II you believe from |
the evidence that the defendant assaulted |
Wj.lic nnliv nr fhs$