Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-14
THE eIGHRR COURfS.
synopsis OF Decisions at The Fre.en. syIsr
s:tfihz.
Sore spesdence OF the Gazette.

dieck We. the S,o1e; appeal from Dewitt
conviction for burglary. Ia this case tn
charge CT the court nsa full snd correct
There wss no l.erit in the motion for
new trial. Tee record ciscloses N
ground fer reversal. Affirmed. Pc
Curiam
Henry Hust W. the Stste; appeal from
Robertson; cor yictioD foE assault to mur
der. There Rss 70 eVidsDCe demsndir;
charge on !nsoXicsti0n or aggravated
assault. Tho cAsfge cf seIt-Gei4Dse il
suGcisn', snd CONSIDERED ~ : va; le wit
refersoce 10 the fscts The caar"e is cor.
rect and gives the law sppIicsb bic - The
facts. Afa med. Per Cnrism.
john West VS.. the S ATE, spperl from
Cherokee. Conviction for unlpHiui4y
caEf!icG pistol. Appellant wss guard
Of c rT.cts in She employ Of the !essees
CT tla peuiten8'arF. At Ghe .rime sppsl.
lslt >7Ss aeen wi;h the pistol be Was at &
plscG a!s.sa; u niles f7C m his plsce Of
dpsy, eId waB not engaged IN the dis.
ctHlEE Ct his dry a. z gustC, but WIGS
dtuGE ard Threatening 20 kill himself or
fLf's 1ne elge before daylight, 1t beirg
nlIe1 when 1e wss seen with toe pistol.
APP Leafs dtferEe vas that he was car
rylrT he pistol 20 get ammunition for t..
HaiI; 4 popiten;!srv gusrd is net epecih-
Cahy 'xCepted from tho operation %
Are. 3ls If he .Usl Code, bat We be-
lieye lie comes within tIe rtspirg Of 8
"civil cfficer" Ee used In Arr 3i9, P. G.
and Should be 1e,d except ehsD erstEed
in tbs discharge OF his Cfi!lll DUTY 90
such uard. But 1t 10 only Nhan he il 90
enetgsd Inst be csu be txcented fem the
operation Of the law becI use FMS Cieces.
% ~. 1tD IL Ia keT IA
nc* Sc engaged ut the the he 10 Charged
with uniawieLy carrying plstol. It's
iDteEL with which ne carried the pistol
wGs question Il fAc: for the jury. The
charge wss full sid cGrrtct. The
evioel ce supports the verdict. Affirmed.
Wills ON, J
Cashmere LivsT VS.. The State, appeal
from Hidsigo. Conviction for MURDER in
the drst degree, with the desth penalty
assessed. When the special veDire IVES
chIet the fourteenth name, Shat CT one
CEss, said Csss did not respond sud WAS
foune 70 be absent. Appellant caused on
attach men. to iseue at oIca, which Bse
returned tee following day, showing that
satd 7.cr was decrepit old man-over
, age. A Hpeiiant objected to the completion
of the Jury until said Csss wss produced.
Ohjecil IN overrult d, ard appellant duly
exceptF. Held: Ordinarily 1t is not
competent tor the court TO excuse Juror
Xao has been summoned on s venire IN
lag been sNurn and his quail fcx-
tested, even though be may be tx
fcom iury sew ce, and the court |
epprieei Of the TACT. But there are |
exceptions 10 this rule, IS where one is |
sick or So 90 repit frs n bodily. il trinity |
as to be uDsble TO sppear. Ii Is shown |
that Cas- ves over oge and decrepi', by |
the resuEa Of he sheI q, snd il sppeIsnt
wished TO controvert this re- urn ne shou!c
have shown lie f2lsity. This cause WIS
not presumed, and We conclude ;hst the
action OF the court IVES sl5;,ber Illegal,
injurious or improper. When the specisl
venir6 WAS return.d with "noG T. u d" rs
to parties on sa'd venire, in order for sp
pellsrt TO have the matter revised IN this
court, be should have svsiied himself Of
his right 10 conrovert the natter before
the court below. When this is not doEe
1t Will be presumed the sherih's return IS
correct. Where en- his yolr d re s juror
states that be had formed 20 such opinion
as would influence him in fading s yer
dict, and On discrimination says that
he has formed an opinion that 1t would
take evidence to remoye-nut that he
Va
and when examined by the court said THAT
he bad formed no such opinion as
would iIHIeDCe bin in fndiTg =
verdict and Shst lie could be entirely gov
erped by the lsW sDd evidence in court
Held: A competen: juror and not sub
lect TO peremptorg cnsllerge. Applicant
took bill Of exceptions to the admission
In evidence Cf certsin swEll strips nf
paper written in Spanish wihout name
or signature. Held: A bill Of sxc p ions
to l6e afmif sioI o: re iectlon CT tes tim NJ
Should be ST fl iently explicit az TO enable
the court 20 fully understand ard know
'sll the fscis en- woich the correctness or
sJsor OF the ruliT g depends. Il is act
shown Whist tie writing wse, or how 1t
could iSjdre applicant. Affirmed.
White, P. !.
Manuel Marines VS.. Inc Slate; appeal
from GJLallee. On the trisl &C this case
.he Stsie MAS permitted to read n evil
dence the statement Of the il iured party
before the ex,miring court IN accordance
with lsT. The ground on which it IVES
admitted was that the witness had re-
moved fro m the s!ete. The evidence TO
show this consisted in On ffiisvit of the
distric: attorney to the fact, that witness
at one time TesiCed In Gorzsles county,
that he had been gone z year or more
that due diligence had been uged 20 Sc
cure his attendance by Issuing attsch..
ments 20 every county if'the state, thSt
sesd attachments hsd 81 been returned
''nct In the county," that sfilsnt hsd Tes-
son 10 believe and did believe shat ssid
witness wss beyond the limits &C the
state. Held: While 1t was competen. to
establish the absence OF witnses iron the
st.te by circumstsntisl evidence, Ss WAC
sought TO be done in this cSSe, ouch evil
deuce, to be sufficient, mus: be clear ard
convincing, showing to the satisfaction OF
the court the fact relied on. TIC render
such testimony admissible 8 satisfactory
pred cate in conformity with the statute
must be clearly established. We DO rot
think s sufficient predicate was laid for
the introduction Of SIC testimony OF the
injured party before the examining court.
Reversed and femEnded. Wilson, J.
Sam Brooks VS.. the State; appeal from
Red River. Conviction for aggravated
xssauly. The injured psrfy, who Ia the
principal witness for the state, testiaes
lhat defendant inflicted the wounds upon
him, and denied that one Tom john
son inflicted them, O. the. lie
had ever sisted such TO be the fsct.'
Three witnesses for the defense testified |
tea: t .ts ..niured party shortly sitter rs-
c. living the wounds told them thst
com johnson IL ficted the sounds. No
other witness except the injured psrty
testified tbat defendant Inflicted the |
wounds, but al the witnesses Who saw
the difficulty ssid thst Tom johnson ves
present end was epgsged IN The struggle
i