Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-06

announce cUn0lc II 2 Opinions. Arnold
case not bling specifically OverruIed, II
fair to presume hat the court have for /
gotten it's rendition, or thst they REGARD
he Holman bill as constitutional and as
unc institutional.
In C1mpton's case l3 CT. OF App, p.
PIT justice White nuers an opinion
,verTuiBg two opinions in which he had
cJncurreo, Morrih's cAst rs c. OF App i, |
p AL ana RpWland's Csc 70 CT. Of
App p 277], as TO the adnissaolliy OF
tue wife's testimony against the husband
IN certain cases Jastic- White attempts
TO atone for his Concurrence in the Nor
rill and Row sno cases, ana his subter-
fuge is unique H cites Overton's case
[4S Texas, p 6l6], rendtr red long before |
&c Morrill, aud K .WlsUd cases, as the |
pr, f=ssionsl Feeder knows.
II late day IL woke OVerton's
case. Ii 1t sustains Whites opinion In
G JmptOL's case ne should have made II
the basis Of dissenting opinion when
Morrill;s and r w and'S case were be-
fore him. To cite 1t IN Compton's csse
shows that he WAS ignorant Of its exist
ence when the two former cases were be-
fore him, and that ii brill and Rowland
suffered unjustly.
In WelIo.'O case fish CT. of App, p.
2O01 the court CV-rTule Davis Gaze b
CO. ut App, p 5lOl, Walkers case 70 ca
Of App p. S8], Msssey's case 10 CI. Of
App, p. 645l, aud Kennon's case
TIlth CT. Of App, p. 1851. In
me closing paragraphs Of his Opinion
Justice Wilson admits that the oplniOhs
in the four oyerrulsd cases, above cited,
were rendered in absolute Ignorance II
Walkers case r CT. OF App, p. S2S, ] an"
OF former decisions OF the Suprems court,
which ne proceeds TO cite spprJviDgly
Were l inimicaI to Msssrs. White and
Wilson could accuse them of anything
that would exceed the gravity Of such
terrible admissions? Could cslumny, be
it nCvsr SO malignant, charge more than
they confess with such celestial COM
plaiga nee?
Here are facts that cannot be exsgger-
ated by your enemies nor distorted by
your friends. II you have no respect for
your own opinions, in Whist estimation
should the public hold them? 1t Is com.
planned that these worthless are underpsid
and overWorked, and yet the fact is IN
deniable that if they would devote less
Time to the preparation of their reports OF
civil cases tor unlawful publication, and
10 the compiling of 'forms"of presidents
, for their own adjudication, and to the
annexation Of Justice Wilson'S forth
coming Penal Code and Code OF
, Criminal Procedure, and bestow
I more attention to the duties which
: the constitution commands they should
, perform, they might at least acquire an
I acquaintance with their own opinions,
4 and not, as in Weller's case &c CT. OF
: App. p. 20o.) proclaim to all enc world
. that during four successive volumes o
: Texas Court OF last resort is ignorant OF
s its own adludications.
). When the present members OF tbs
;. bench accepted their Offices their TINS
!, becama the peoples; they have 10 right
{ to neglect duties which they we're elected
e to perform, and devote the peoples tins
e to the preparation OF books on private
# enterprises.
In Roberts case IL CT. CT App. p 81.
s Justice While overrules Rannah's CAST
S r. CT. of App, D. 5S21 Snd Kucx's cast
@ III CT. Of App, p. 290l, wherein it hat
d been held that possession of recentl!
II stolen property, unexplained, would no
II of itself warrant O conviction. While tn
laW is & progressive science, this DOCTRINE
II has been regarded as settled for centu'
), ries TR )scoe's Grim. En-, 16l and Justice
3, White, despite all his pompous announce
n ment, only returns to the common law
e after s fantastic departure, and. as usual
= however, broke his record and compla
IS Gently ccncurred in the dGpartuT
3 an6 the return. In Coombe'S cas-
G III Ct OF App I Justice Wilson o7errule
n Ireland's opinion in Martins case 4
n Tex, p. 1921, and says it is in conilc
& with Halls case IL Tex, p. 2S7I. Blu
Il the men who composed the Supreme couI
n both understood and performed thei
e duty. The statute then, as now, settlet
T. the question of ssportation in thief
8 TPGsehsl's Digest, Arts. 1881 and 1886
II and PenAl Code, Art. 1861. Judge Ire
;e land simply held that the evidence in Mar
: tins case made out conviction for ma
Iicious mischief, which could no
e be had under 6 theft Indictment
It His opinion expressly negative
}. the !, construction sought Il
IS be plsced upon it By Justice Wilson. Tit
2 attempt to torture Judge Ireland's opir
s ion, concurred in by his then associate
If on the bench, Roberts, Reeves, Gould snt
y Moore, into seeming ignorance of prio,
70 holdings of that same bench, will obtsil
l. no credence among the rational.
+, Now in Bell's case T20 CT. of App, p
d 445l Judge Hurt delivers succinct anC
If clear opinion upon the law of iustilabl,
e homicide, holding that when seIf-defenst
s is set up, the trial court must charge tn
e Jury that they must view the appearance
l. Of danger from the defendants stand
II point, that this charge must be givtr
+ whether asked or not, and its omission il
fundamental error, citing the highest au-
thority in support of his luminous opin.
: ion. Notwithstanding the opinion is good
q law, Messrs. White and Wilson con-
e Cured in it.
e Now in'Connor's case T23 CEsof App
= p. 378 Justice White announces thss xkt
q omission of the trial court TO charge 81
= laid down in Bells case, when self de-
It Tense is set up, even if excepted to at the
II time, no matter what the fscts are, is not
# error unless such charge is specially re.
quested. That opinion destroyst the relation
=, that heretofore existed between the
e charge of the court snd the issues raised
: by the evidence; the logical sequence is
= that charge should no longer conform
: to the evidence unless defendant chooses
y to instruct the court as to his rights under
: the charge, as il the court were q Ian
It student. The opinion in Connor's case
o If the court adhere to 1t, authorizes tris
e court to omit penalties, the definition O!
offenses, Of degrees, omit anything; fol
| fr1rH -.