Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-12
Court OF Appeals.
,rrespondence of the Gazette.

Court OF Appeals.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
AUSTIN, Tex Msy 9.-Frenzee VI
State; Travis county. Indictment fol-
pursuing occupation of selling mall
liquors, in quantities less than quart
patton, and fined SIS. The appellant was
the servant of the Turn yereip, had NO
interest in the liquors sold, belonged to
the society, sold In the house leased by
and under the control of the society, the
liquors sold we're sold to the members
OF the society; that he had been specially
authorized to sell the liquors by the off,
GERS Of said society. This society was
chartered by the Legislature In 1871. One
clause of its charter provided "that the
said corporation" shall not be liable to
pay any occupation tax, either state,
grounds and facts urged to reverse the
case. He'll: There was no error in the
conviction, Affirmed.
Ex psrte Will Suddeth-Applicatio
for bail; Tarrant county. Appeal
court in chambers; an appli-
der OF John Christian. Held: Upon the
evidence contained IN the record before
us, on this appeal, we are Of opinion that
appellant is entitled to bail. There is no
evidence in the record upon the Ques-
ton Of his ability to give bail, and We
hsVe therefore no special data to guide US
with reference to the amount.
The judgment refusing bail is reversed,
and ha will no rnlos sod from cuctodu
upon his execution of bond with good
$4,000, conditioned as the law requires.
White, presiding judge.
Lyons VI. The State; Karres county.
This appeal is from conviction for dis
turbipg Sunday school. It is alleged
in the information that appellant disturb
ed the congregation by loud and yocifer-
Gus EXPLANATIONS and swearing. Held:
The evidence wholly fails to support tbs
manner of disturbance, In either the
modes alleged. There was no loud and
vociferous exclamation, and no swearing
proven. II any disturbance WAS crested
1t WAS in 8 different manner from those
alleged. Allegation and proof must cor
respond to warrant conviction In all
criminal cases. Reversed and remanded.
White, presiding judge.
Missouri Psciic Z silwsy Company and
Texas Pacific Railway Company vs. Vic
BoWles; Dallas. Suit by Bowler, for
damage for killing fine mare worth $500
and her calt worth S1e0, and another colt
worth $50. The animals while in his pss-
ture strayed on to the track Of the Texas
Pacific Railway Company and were killed
by railroad train through the careless
- &c khn nj
track was used jointly and operated by
both companies, between Dallas and Fort
Worth-.he track was not fenced. The
verdict wss for $3.50 without stating
against whom Il was rendered; on this
verdict the judgment was rendered
against both companies. Held: That
the proof shows that the Missouri Pacific
train killed the mare, Diisy; but fails to
show VT ether The Missouri Pacific or the
Texas Pacific train killed the colts. The
Missouri Pacific is responsible for the
value of the mare; but not for
the colts. The Texas Pacific is response
BILE for the value OF the mare and colts,
[67 Texas, 42O and 6s2.] Reversed and re-
manded. Hurt, judge.
Gsvett vs. the State; Guadalupe
county. Information charging that ap-
pSllhus ''ulu UIcosS pun uOWA oAu ILL
the fence of Joseph B. Dibbrell and Emil
Moshelm without the consent Of the said
Joseph B. Dibbrel and Emil Mosheim +"
Held: That both the information and the
complaint upon which it was founded are
fatally defective, in that they fail to
sllege the want of consent of each of the
owners of the fence to the pulling down
and injurirg thereof by the defendant.
Reversed and dismissed. Wilson, Judge.
Ssichst VS.. the State; Guadalupe. There
Is no evidence in the record showing the
time of the commission of the alleged
oiense; this is fatal error and the As
sistant Attorney General confesses the
error. A novel question is presented in
the record. In the information the al
legged slanderous words are set forth in
the English language Ga the trial over
the objection of defendant the State was
permitted to prove slanderous words used
oy defendant in the German language,
the words when interpreted meaning sub
,stantially the same as the slanderous
words set forth in the information. The
question presented is: When oral SIAN
der is alleged to have been committed by
the use CT English language, can such
SANDER committed BY the use Of the Ger
man language be proveda There being
no allegation that the SANDER was
uttered In the German language. Held:
That the court erred in permitting the