Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-18
Silk Hose at S56.
TIE COURT OF APPEALS.
conksued from Third Page.

coHESued from Third Page.
the majority of the court constitutes the
Law Of the case, and the legal result is
not affected by placing the dissenting
members opinion on the record. There
is no Law requiring such an opinion to be
written, and as strong arguments can be
adduced agsiEss as IN favor Of such 3
practice. Usually, where very impor-
PANT principle 10 involved, the dissenting
Judge conceives it to be his duty to cum
Der the records with his individual ideas
about It; but this certainly ought not &c
be done on every case.
Again, the Senator charges that in
Webb's case, rs Court Of Appeals,
96, Judge White overruled the
Iopinion CT the Supreme court
las given in Gherke's case us Tex 56S7
IS to admitting the testimony Of non-pro-
iessional witnesses TO establish the de-
tense Of insanity. The records, however,
do not sustain the charge. That Opinion
of the Supreme court mad already been
/ oVerruled, in effect though rot in express
1 terms, by the Supreme court itself, in the
| Two later cases, mentioned as in III and
ilI2 Texas reports; and Slso in then prior
= lecision Of the Court Of Appeals. As the
fherke case was the only Texas decision
lrectly asserting the contrary and e.
a9aeous doctrine, and. SIS il had in fact
f5een already overrUled, though not men
fionec by name, it YVES certainly not IN
appropriate for Judge White to state the
hlt, as he did in en- impersonal and inof-
y hsive manner, that Il was overruled;
Got by him. nor by the court in that case
Hone, bGt by virtue Of all the cases which
lie mestioned. Yet for fagrAut crimes
kuch IS this the Senator ransacks foreign
Countries for illustrations with which
TO add force TO his invective, and heap
opprobrium on the Judges head; and
with deplorsble lack of patriotism and
neglect OF home institutions, he selects
the j.ckal OF Egypt when the Indigenous
ticayOte OF the Panhandle could have served
his purpose equally we'll.
The case OF Conner Vs. State, % Court
OF Appeals, SIS !, wherein the court sat
1pon the Senator, he now appeals, so far
s argument is concerned, from that tri-
nal to the people. His first proposition
thGt the court Judge White rendering
opinlon) erred in holding that the
81 Judge was lot required to instruct
siury thst the reasonable Of the sppre-
n5ion Of danger was to DE Judged from
" NSANAGsa-Ah . ehoAGktOA ~ GLAO lOAlEAs
the homicide, when no charge had been
ecislly requested by counsel to that ef-
{. The Senator ccnceiyes the ruling
inst him 20 be snoverruling Of form
iclsion in Bal.'S case, RIO Court of
esesis, 4451, snd he says that
dge White, to be consistent,
ould have expressly declared.
ST now he complained that Judge
hIte did expressly declare the Ghe1ke
Sc overruled, but II seems to make :
Ference when the Senator's OK is gored.
ere is nothing, however, in the Bell
Sc properly requiring that Judge White
ould have declared It overruied by
Sc not really in conflict with it. 1t sp-
sfs that COUNCIL for Bell in the trial
lrt special y requested charge as to
standpoint from which the reasonable
he desendant's fear Of danger WAS to
aetermined, and the refusal Of the
to give this requested charge was
eversible error. In the subsequent
fPstillo vs. State % CT. App. 5Ss
ch Judge White himself delivers
psnion, exactly the same ruling is
made. The trouble with the Con-
ase so far as the printed record dis
is that no such instruction was
1iy requested Of or submitted to the
eose. In the Bel case Judge Hurt,