Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-20
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopses Of ecIsions Rendered at the
Present Austin Slit ng OF the
Court OF Appeals.
Short vs.. the State, Hadley vs. the State and
johnson We. the State, from Tar
rant County, Affirmed.
correspondence of the Gazette.

State; appeal from Tatrant county. In
dictmsnt for un!awfully carrying pis-
toll on his person, fine Of S25 and twenty
days Imprisonment in the county jail. In
this case the following questions are
raised, discussed by counsel and passed
on by the court, viz: l. The sufflciency
of the evidence. 2. The charge Of the
court as 20 the punishment, because the
old law, and not the act Of 1887, is in
force. In this case there is an entry in
the Senate Journal twentieth Legisle-
ture) in the following language: The
President gave notice of signing House
bill flfty-seyen. Senate Journal, p. 306l
1t WAS commended that the statement that
the President gave notice of signing does
not show that he had signed; il it does
show that he had signed, it is clearly in
consistent with the idea of such signing
being in the presence OF the Senate, and
after the public residing Of the title.
Held: That the Journal sufficiently
shows thst the act was properly signed
by the President of the mate. There is
no statement of facts that can be consid-
cred, i. not having been approved by the
Judge. Affirmed. Per CuriSm.
Charles Hadley VS.. the State, from Tar
rant county; indictment charged the
offence as follows: On the Goth day Of
October, 1887, with force aud arms un-
lawfully die keep and exhibit, for the pur-
pose OF gaming, q gaming table and bank,
contrary to the form, etc. II was urged
By counsel for appellant that the indict-
ment was fatally defective IN that 1t did
not charge any specific gaming table or
hrv b haar bow hfh Tod hvy
defendant, and further that il the
Indictment WAS founded on the
(omni0us) clause of the Penal Code
that the facts constituting the oHehse
should have been set forth. Held: The
statute objected to was in force long prior
to the adoption of our present constitu-
ton, and had been recognized and tSus
tsiued in several decisions. We hold It
to be valid, and not in violation of any
constitutional provision, or in conflict
with any decision. Per curtain, az
frmed. zsSE
Walter Johnson VS.. the State; from
Tsrrant county. Indictment for uttering
forged instrument, being 80 follows:
'MR. PALHOsKI-PIesse let Walter, my
porter, have COAT and vest, oblige
G. Fl. DAY.
1l-28-'87"
The defense relied on was plea of
former conviction, the appellant having
been indicted, tried and convicted in the
district court of the offense OF forgery,
the same instrument on which this in
dictment is founded. This WAS over
ruled and stricken out by the trial court,
and that action assigned as error. A
motion TO qussh the indictment because
1t failed to charge that the first iDstru-
ment in writing alleged to have been
uttered by defendant was an instrument
made in such manner that the came
would, if true, have created, increased,
diminished, discharged or defeated any
pecunisrY obligation, or would have
transferred or in any manner have af-
fected any kind of property. The over
ruling Of this motion WAS also assigned
as error. Held: That none of the mat
tiers complained Of show error. The evil
dence is sufficient and the charge correct.
Affirmed per Curtain.
Barrett VS.. the State; from Houston
county. Indictment, theft of q horse.
Several reasons are urged for reversal of
this case, aside from that of overruling
the application for continuance, the prin-
cipal one being that the court erred in
Charging that If the horse was taken at
any time within five years before March
IL, 1888, the other essentials being proven,
the jury might convict. The Indictment
was filed March IL, 1887. Held: The con-
tinusuce was properly overruled, dill
gence not sufficient; the evidence being
also sufficient, and the charge Of the court
correct Affirmed per curtain.
Andrews vs.. the State, Harrison county;
Indictment for theft Of COW. Defendant
proposed to prove by several witnesses
that on the day after he took possession
of the alleged stolen COW, he stated that
he had taken her up as an estray, and
believing her to be such. This testimony
wSs excluded on objection by the state.
The defendant had made the day before
and the day he had took possession, other
explanations Of his possession to differ
ent persons; the evidence OF these per-
sons as to what that explanation WAS,
conflicted. Held: That while, perhaps,
ordinarily subsequent explanations of
possession would not be held as Admis-
sible, whereas in this case the testimony
is conflicting and uncertain, it Is fair and
Just that the defendant should have the
benefit Of them when they corroborate
his first explanation. r yversed and re-
manded. Wilson, Judge.
conviction for gaming under srticle lS5,
Penal Code. Indictment in substance
charges that appellant, in the town OF
Haskell, Haskell county, Tex, did en-
gage in species of gaming, and did then
and there play st game of cards for q
horse. Held: The indictment, to be
sufficient under the article cited, should
ellege the name of the person or persons
with whom the defendant engaged in
gaming; or 1t should have alleged the
name Of the person or persons with whom
the defendant played the game of cards;
or with whom the wager for the horse
wss made. While it is true that all the
elements of the offense are alleged, still 8
description of the offsnse, that is the
facts Of the transaction, should be given.
Judgment reversed and prosecution dis
missed Hurt, Judge.
Bean w. the State, from Lamar county.
Indictment for murder of the second
degree: conviction for an aggravated as