Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-25
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synepses OF Decisions Rendered at the
Present Austin Sitting OF the
Higher Courts Of Texas.
Thrse rarrsnt County Deoisions-Findirg
In The Suprenae Court on an Impor-
taut Land Lease Case.
COURT of Appeals.


motion TO dismiss the certificate On the
grounds: % That the appeal here in had
never been perfected and therefore the
jurisdiction II this court has never at,
tached. % That the record shows the
CLERK fixed the amount OF the cost al
$500 ard the bond shows that ::
is only in the sum Of $500 ard not $500.
He'd: The grounds OF the m1sion not
weil> taken certificate is SUFFICIENT AT.
fTmed,
Adkins vs.. the State. This is go appeal
from conviction for obstructing public
read. The defendant represented himself
in the court below. These points tie re-
Lei on for reversal: l. Evidence In.
sufficient to support conviction; It fails to
show, frs. that the road was pualic
by Iorg continued use and rec0g.
lion by 0 lie Commi- sioners' court,
bu showta only recognition By the court.
(2) The order Of the Commits ioners'
court wss 2nuliity bsCauae entered without
the appointment and report Il receivers.
and was not maze o. 3 report OK receiV-
ers, 2s the law requires. 90 Tas evil
GeuCe tGiIs 50 show thci re CEfsaGsut
acted WijfuIy il putting up the oostrGC-
ton. HeiG: The pOrtigG Of the road
oosTucted Wss q change mEde in
the former r0sd, and the recoE /
shows that EGch WAS made il
1883 in the manner provided by
the law then in force
The road was recognized bV orders CT the
Commissioners Cour., working same and
the evidence shows 1t WAS . puslic road
ald as INSTRUCTED by defendant TilltullY
Affirmed
White G KennOn W. the S.ste, Concho,
Appellants were sureties on the rec0g-
nlzAnCe Of one Sparks, who WAS indicted
for steslisg horse; they app Jared befc-e
The court and entered into reCogQiZance
to appear al the November term next. It
is 'enedd that this recognizance is
void because It did not bind the appear
anCe st the time Of the court then in
session. Art. 283, G. G. P TIE iud 2.
ment Of the court is at variance with the
Judgment Il al; in that the Judgment nj
81 is against SPARKS to principal in $1,000,
and against appellants each as sureties
for $1,000; the final Judgment is AGAINST
Sparks and defendants jointly in $1,000
Held: Tle reCOgn!zance is valid one;
the special defeuCes insufficient; the
judgment final conforms substantially TO
the judgment nj 81. All med.
Cunningham VS.. State, San Saba; con-
viction for obs!ructlIg public road. It
is cOntended tl4t the order Of the Com
missioners' court in laying out the road
charged 20 h2ve been ObstruCted was rot
valid because not upon q petition fled for
thst purpose; that the road SIS estab-
lished Wss made witbCu: Guy cOmDensx-
ton 10 appellant as owner of the
land. Il was shown that appellant
had asked OF the Commissioners
court change OF the road, and this was
refused. The appellant contends that he
YVES never notified Of the condemnation
of land for the road or OF the purpose to
establish the road scEoss bis LAND; the
lard was uEincl0sed land. Affirmed
Conner et els. vs.. the State; COlemsD.
Conner and his sureties, J. Coggins and
L. VickeIy, gave bond for Con
nOr's appearance at the March
Of Coleman county, to answer al
indiCtmeItfCr hCr2e theft, In the sum, OF
500. This bond Wss forfeited af3udg-
ment nj 81 against CoDnor and his surss.
ties entered st the March term ofselfst
court; on the same day au alias Aaessfs
was issued for ConnOr ard uuderfhxt he
WAS arrested by the Sheriff OF Hssdemsn
county and put in Coleman ikif June s, j
1887; on September s, 1887, he gave a
new pond and YVES released from custody.
He was tried and convicted 81 the Octo-
Der term, A. D 1887. II is commended ID
that the Judgment ri 81 could not be
made dnGl after the principal hSd beer
arrested and given new bond; (2).
that where citation to the surettsa
il 8 scigie fsciss fails 20 recite
that csp!ss issued for defendant or that
defendant w.s arrested It is insufficient.
Held by the court: TIE new bond sitter
forfeiture OF the frs. bond cid dot affect
the liability Of sureiies or first bond.
The citation is sufficient. Affirmed.
Crawford vs.. tn Safe; Robertson. r.
dictment for assault with intent to mur-
der; conviction for aggravated assault.
The injured party testified that on the
dsy of the assault ne vas working in his
new ground. appellant approached
Faulkner, the assaulted psrty, took
out bottle Of whisky sud
wanted Faulkner 20 take 5 drink
Faulkner refused but appellant told him
he'll be damned if he shouldn't. Faux
ner then, to pgciiy him, took drink. So
the compliments passed until Faulkner
got mad, got over the fence and knocked
Crawford down with his fat, suc YVES
betting it TO him until pulled of by Mr..
Zlchery. Defendant got up and s.id
Faulkner had licked him. Defendant got
on his horse t. 60, bu: made of q
little ways, pulled out pistol and re-
turned. Faulkner got behind tree and
managed to keep the tree between
himself and defendant until his little
boy went to the house, distant about
225 yards, for Faulkner's gun.
When the little bov came In about seven
ty-fve yards Of Faulkner with the GUT
defendant ran away quite rapidly. 1t is
insisted that the court ought to have
charged on the law of self defense. Held:
That the defendant provoked the diff
Guilty and hence the facts d i'd not demand
a charge on the lsw Of sell defense.
G. NJ. Norton vs.. the Stste; r obertson.
Motion for rehesring. At & former dayl
of this term the appeal in this case w8sI
dismissed, because the recognizlnce
fsils to state al ohense; the charge on
which he was convicted wss unlawfully
carrying on or about his person pistol.
The recognizsnce is for uLlawfully carry
ing pistol. The appellant on the 16sh |
June, 1883, fled motion for rehearing,
and to thst motion eppends: a. The !
efi1avit OF the appellant that the recog-
njzInce as 1t appears in the record is
not the one he entered into before the |