Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-20
lllingly" does not appear upon the rec.

ord.
J he next asserts that in Arnold's case
III G. A. 472] the court sustains the con-
stitutionality of the Holman common
sense Indictment DILL. This is not the
fact. It passed only on an Indictment
for theft under that bill.
| In Williams case IL G. A. 395 he
states that he court declared said bill or
act unconstitutional. This is not the
fact. 1t simply declared the form for
theft unconstitutional. He criticises the
fact that the court does not ex-
pressly override the Arnold c. e.
An examination Of Arnold's case shows
that the case "went of" on the ground
that the indictment was presented prior
! to the passage of the Holman bill, and
was insufficient under the Old law. This
! readily accounts for and explains Mr..
Houston's difficulty. The first ruling OF
| the court sustained the form. On re-
hearing the czse WAS dismissed for the
| reason above given.
What is said about Compton's case us
c. A. 271 is correct in fact; but we see
no basis for the structure upon Judge
White, which is as follows: "Justice
| White attempts to atone for his concuc-
renee in the Morrill, and Rowland cases,
and his suotertuge is unique" Here is
| the Judges language: ga fact (meaning
the decision in Overton's case) which
| seems to have been overlooked, at ell
events it it is not noticed or alluded to in
either of those opinions" Next Justice
Wilson is fercely assaulted for admitting
in Weller's case l6 G. A. 200 that the
court had overlooked and was ig-
norant of question decided IN
Walkers case r C. A 1861.
Here the frank and manly avowal of error
by Judge Wilson is construed as 8
damnsble "sdmssiop," and forms the
thesis for another burst of sophomore
defamation.
Reference is next made to another act
OF Judge White In oVerruling former de-
cision regarding the unexplained posses
sion OF property recently stolen. The
correctness Of the ruling is not ques-
toned. II is indeed another instance OF
"oVerruling," yet the gentleman cannot
"resist the temptation" Of q fling at JUS
tice White by dilating on his "pompous
announcement, and charging that "he
broke lis record and compl8ceutly con-
CARED in the departure and return" His
III operation is growing disarmed."
In Coombe's case ITl7 CT. App |, Mr..
Houston charges Judge Wilson with I'M
justly and improperly everything Martins
case A T. 1721 Let US see what the
facts are. Juoge Ireland, in Martins |
case, says: sit is sufficient for theft |
that the property is in the COM
plete actual possession OF the thief |
WOO takes it with fraudulent intent"
"The proof must show that there |
was 6 conversion which, under the code, |
is the synonym of taking" The law is, |
that neither carrying away nor actual |
complete possession is necessary to con- |
stitute theft. Halls case FL T. 287l so |
states.
We now come to the last case cited, the |
Conner case. Justice White is arraigned |
for having committed two plain and griev-
Gus errors In his decision OF this case
The one is in sustaining the competency
OF parol evidence of the contents of tel
egram, the non-production of the original
not being properly accounted for. An
of the case sho rs that Judge
White expressly says that the contents OF
the telegram were notadmissible, but that
the fact that telegram was sent and
received was competent as q circum-
stance. Whether the ruling under the
facts was correct or not, 1t certainly
wo2ld have been but fair in Mr.. Houston
% state the grounds upon which Judge
White based his ruling.
The other error charged against Judge
White is that he grossly violated the law in
sustaining the trial Judge in his failure 10
charge upon the appearance of danger to
defendant from his standpoint. Mr..
Houston says nothing about Judge
~ HcniAinn "a n
charge was not applicable to the facts
The record in the report seems
to US to sustain this view. Mr..
Houston also assails Judge White for
citing Kennedy's case rs Tex. c. A 1897,
when such case had no bearing whatever
on the point in controversy. He asks;
TO such shallow artifice es to seek to jus-f
tify what is not justlfablef" Now the
facts are, in the case as reported the re-
620. Evidently by mistake, either cleri-
cal or typographical, the figure "9' was
written instead CT "19." Now, Kenne-
directly on the point. When the gentle
nedy's case in this Report, p. 399, and
iOuuu buhG ~ uau III opfALSnNlOAI USaFN
not ordinary fairness have sug-
gested clerical error? Should /
not the gentlemsn's Thoroughly
and extensive acquaintance, VIII
the Texas Court of Appeals cases. snf
which IN his estimatiop
has justified him in attacking two of It's
judges on their entire record in said court
extending over period. OF ten years or
more, have suggested that Ksuaedy's I
case in 10 T. was the one intended?
Ought not his familiarity with the late
Texas Court of Appeals cases, bearing /
directly on an important point in 'hei
Conner case, in which the gentleman had
taken a bill Of exceptions, have induced
him to examine Kennedy's case in 10 Tex?
II he had done so he would have found
the case on the page cited and applicable
to the facts" Where is "the shaliew1
artifce?"
AS to the last charge, not affecting
Judge Whites judicial course, oStsssc]
cusing him Of man euVring to get Office
under the Davis administration, we know
nothing, have never before heard his
loyalty to Democracy question. The
position he has so long held st the hands
of the Democratic party Of Texas, its
confidence and esteem ne has so long en-