Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-24
The HIGHER COURTS.
syrsTses OF Decisions Rendered st tho
Present Austin Sitting of the
Higher Courts OF Texas
Three Tsrrsnt County Notwithstanding
10 tho supreme court on an Impor-
tRnt Land Lease Case,
Tho court OF Appeals,


correspondence Of the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX, June 22.-HsnnessdcrI
V. State; Brown. Appellant WAS con
glc.ed in the County court for working
On Sunday. The facts are that ne was
tie superintendent OF the BcownWOod ice
factory, and that II the works were closed
down on Saturday night at u O'Clock &c
Sunday night at u o'clock it would take
from twenty-touI TO thirty-six hours &c
reduce the temperature SO that ice could
be lawn; the FIST ice dawn would OF
spOngy ana uHsaIsOie. Held That The
lsoor Of operating Hu ice factory is {
work Of necessity and comes within tne
exception Of tie stat te. r rs d Ind
reminded. Hu Judge.
Powell IS. tie 6gaLe; from GTa7son.
Theft Of horse, the property Of Mosel
Sksggs, ana i've years Imprisonment
assessed as the punishment. On the
trial the defendant aeked the court &c
charge that mere possibility OF guilt is
not 81 tIicient, nor IS 8 strong possibility
or suspicion OF the guilt Of the defendant
sufficient to convict. You should acsuii
defendant II you have q reasonable DOUBT
although yen do not believe the defendant
innocent. This charge was refused
There is no bill Of exception in the
record, or G statement Of facts. Held
That there is no error,as can be perceived
from the record. Affirmed.
ToCmbs Glenn VS.. the SlGte' from vii
Hanson. Conviction for disturbing the
peace. Held: The evidence is conflict
ilG put IS sufficient. There are no excep.
tons to the charge that can be
considered, as they were ed too late,
thirteen days after the trial) The
evidence referred to in the motion fol
new trisl is cumulative and none Of tht
grounds Of sAiu motion ere sufficient.
Affirmed
Humes vs. the State, Grayson county
Conviction Of 81 assault with intent &c
mRrder-con1nement in the penitentiary
for six years assessed SIS the punishment.
There is 8 bill of exception which pre-
sents the following: The County Attor-
ueY wss permitted 10 ask the prosecuting
witness Il he (witness) knew why de
leudant smiled every time the County
Attorney asked tie witness why the de-
iendant struck bin and whether or not
defendant had al excuse for SO striking
him The exception WAS on the ground
tbs. .he question was wholly irrelevant
sud calculated to pytjuGice the Jury
against the defendant by causing them 20
think that defendant is now delighted be-
cause De struck witness. Held by the
court: That the evidence and charge
sT5 correct; none OF the bills OF eXcep-
,ioa sra tensble; no error in the couVic-
ton. Affirmed.
80 RN-rna
Of ho-se theft and Eve years imprison-
meat assessed as the penalty. Held by
The court: The Indictment need not have
been marked "fled," End it was Pc PSF
iOrtSecuUrg to order i. died nunC pro tune.
l. viii be presumed, IN the absence OF
proof 70 the contrary, that me grand ju-
Eor WAS sworn. There is no error ia any
Of the mRtter complained Of which ShCuld
Cause reversal. Affirmed.
Schloes vs.. Kahn; Limestone. This is
molien 10 affirm jul gmeRt on certificate.
l. seems that The case below
went Cfon demu,rers 10 plaintiff s
cause Of action, which were
sustained by the court, and judy
meut which YVES rendered shows thst tie
court a6judged plaintiffs csuse Of action
10 be heard. The appeal bond is for 800,
but il nowhere appears what the amount
Of plaintiffs demand WAS. The certificate
wss dismissed on tie ground that the ID
risdiction of this court is not shown
Dismissed.
Bennett vs.. Cross, Shsckelford. Suit
On note and payment by defau against
Bennett. The note was for $500 origin
GLY. 1t does not mention interest. Ii
became due Jaly l, 1884. A payment OF
$500 was made on IL August %, 1884. 1t
IS Contended by appellant that the note
SHOWS on its face 10 have been reduced TO
81 amount below the Jurisdiction Of the
county court st the time suit was filed,
September, 1867 Affirmed, with 10 per
cent. damages. Affirmed.
Eoore VS.. the State, Falls. This is s
conviction for perjury growing out OF sp-
nsusut's testimony given Ia the trial Ct
Guy Williams for sn assault with intent
10 murder G. II. Gossoway on the 4th Of
August, 1856. The msin issue in that case
was whether at the. time Of tue as
ssult, Gossaway hsd d pistol and at
tempted to draw 1.-THE appellant having
CT inst trial testified that GosSwAy had s
pistol and attempted TO draw it a. the
time Of the assault upon him oy Williams
With gun: on the trisl appellant asked
mis- charge: That If the jury did not find
Inst the witness GossowAy is corrooora-
led by other testimony than mis- own then
you must SCOUT the defendant; and If
you fud that he did thirgs and made dec
lsrstioAs which tend to corroborate him,
this would not be sufficient in the absence
Of other testimony to justify defendants
conviction" This is companion case
with that Of Brown vs.. the state 25:h &
4. Held; That the indictment, evidsnce
and charge is sufficient; no material error
IN ruling Of the court. u
Gnolson and wife We. G. c. & SSHs
Railway Company. Tsrrant. MotioHfar
fehearing: the motion in this case pre-
sents the following points: % That the
court had overlooked the fact shown by
the two deeds in evidence that portion