Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-18
". FL. Taylor ". H. Taylor

after stating the matter that pecessitated
the TeVeTsGl--the request for the special
charge and It's refussl-uses the
expression that '1t wss the duty of the
court below to give in charge to the Jury
the law of the case, whether requested or
not" Tbst statement while correct IS a
general proposition Of l6w applicable to
felony cases, ives not called for by the
case at bar, wss not necessarily involved
In its determination, end is therefore to
be regarded SIS obiter dicta. The entire
court may be understood as concurring in
the disposition actually made Of 8 case,
and in such conclusion as that DISPOSE
ton necessarily requirts, but the lam
gusge CT the opinion is that Of the Judge
who writes il, and for extra0eous state
ments therein the other members of the
court are not 7, sponsibie, nor are such
statements the decided law even of that
csse. Such unnecessary expressions
should be avoided since uDthinking men
are mlsled thereby, just IS my friend
Houston has been misled in this instance.
II is to be noticed that Judge
White uses no such expression IN
deciding the Patillo case, and in
view of the fact that Judge Hurt
somewhat doubtful that even he intended
thsS the general principle ne enunciates,
should have the specific application con-
tended for. 1t is the duty OF the trial
Judge to state substantially the law Of the
case, but he should not be required to
state in addition, every shade of qualif-
cation ana every item Of further specie-
cation which the human mind can ap-
col ba eid rS
special instructions embodying these
matters.
DEPRESSING here for s moment, it msy
be remarked that the Senator's lauds-
lions of Judge Hurt are evidently made
merely for the purpose Of contrast. He
is exceedingly unfor unste in his selec-
tioD of & case by which to exAlt Judge
Hurt st the expense of his associates.
he ssys that the Judges dissenting opin-
ion in the Gordon case RS CT. App. 2l91
is one of his many brilliant struggles
sgainst doctrines which he cannot
sanction with honor or oppose with
success. Judge Hurts strong natural
abilities, and his honest and fearless in
dependence Of thought have won for him
on the bench the respect and esteem even
Of those who were prejudiced against
him st the beginning, but mis- predisposi-
ton towards the defendants side of the
case is well known, and the csse upon
which the Senator has blundered is one
that presents the judges weakness in the
clearest light. Il is = case in which the
Judge not only overrules, SO far IS he
could Individually do so, one Of his own
opinions Mills vs.. State, Is CT. A0p.,
All but also one in which he wss en-
desyoripg TO override the decisions of the
Supreme court-s most heinous offense
In the Senator's eyes, when committed by
Judge White. II Is an effort to overturn
3 well settled line Of decisions peculiarly
in consonHnce with the spirit and enIight-
eminent OF The age and the progress Of the
law; decisions holding that the
indictment may be stripped of the
useless veroosity required by
the common law. On this
point, all the decisions are In thst direc-
ZION, and all the legislation to that end;
but Just as the captive law is about TO be
fully released from her bonds, Judge
Hurt demands that the letters of barbsr-
ism be again placed about her limbs. AZ
ter 1t mad become settled law that an in
dictment charging that A. made an assault
upon B. with intent to murder B., was
sufficient, the judge wants to undo the
good work, and require that the allega-
ton shall be that A. intended to murder
B. with malice aforethought, and other
ingredients Of the crime Of murderer
bisgs as useless for any practical purpose