Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-18
Synopses Of Decisions Rendered at tho
Present Austin Sitting Of the
Higher Courts OF Texas.
upreme Court and Court OF Appeals Find
inRs- Two Important rarrant
County Dscisionf.
Uourt of Appeals.
- a. NNN-

Uourt of Appeals.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX, June 16 -Oshbrant vs..
= State, Llkno county. Appellant was con-
victsd for leboring on Sunday, under ar
ticle 1888, P. c., the labor consisted in
shoeing stage horses. Held: Was this
work OF necessity under the facts? II
so, there wss no offense, article 1874, P.
c. We think SO. See Hemnersderf vs.
State decided to day, slso 4th Cush. rs;
Is Mass, 354; 4th Ohio state, SIS; So
Ind, AIS; 81 Md, 1879. Reversed and re-
manded. Hurt, Judge.
Phlpps vs.. the State, Jack county. APP
pellsnt appealed from convection in the
Justice court to the County court and
executed, his appeal bond, in the
County court on his appeal he pleaded
guilty and was fined So and costs, was
reminded to the custody Of the sheri1,
and by him placed in jsil, where he re-
NAMED some time until released by. the
sheriff. Subsequently the county attor-
ney made motion to foIfei. his appesl
bond with 8 judgment nisi and scire IA
ciSs to his sufeties; granted by the court,
The gureties answered that the appear
apce, f1e and Imprisonment OF appellant
relieved them On the sppeal bond; that it
had bacon functions offcio. The county
attorney moved TO quish this answer /;
motion sustained snd the judgment final
rendered sgsinst the sureties. Held ::
T2is ruling YES erroneous. See Chill
dress W.. S.ste, decided tc. day. Re-
vsrssd snd remsnded. White, Presiding
Judge.
Cnildress vs.. State, Jack county. Chill
dress was tried for misdemesnor in the
Justice'5 court and sppeaied to the
County court; bis appeal bond Was
quashed snd be wss remsnded into the
custody CT the Sheriff until the fne i'm
posed in the Justice court wa5 p5id.
Four days after this the County Attorney
Aled motion in the County court pray
ing forfeiture and judgnents nisi upon
the suashed appeal bond and scire facias
to his suTeties; on the same day this WAS
done Childress WAS put Ia jail by the
6lerE. he made oath that he Wss too
poor TO pay the fine and costs as provided
by article Sl6 of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure. He stayed in Jail sixteen days
and wss then discharged. When tue
sciTe facias against suretiss was called
for trial the answer thereto set up the
above facts and claimed thst the
appeal bond was fsnctus oficio
when /. was qusshed for Insult
cheney by the County court and
the appeal dismissed, and was no longer
of shy validity or binding force upon
them. They also pleaded that the de-
fendant had by his imprisonment fully
satisfied the Judgment. This answer was
stricken cut on motion Of the county
attorney and judgment made dnal. Held:
That this was error; the answer presented
3 sufficient defense, and the motion to
strike out should not have prevailed.
White, Presiding Jddge.
Drum VS. City of Fort Worth; Tsrrant
county. Drum appealed to the County
court from the Recorders court. The
appeal was dismissed because the appeal
bond was insufficient in amount, occa-
stoned by two items in the bill OF
cost made after the execution OF
the bond; one oeing for receiving
and paying over the ene ana costs, and
one for the transcript on the appeals. It
seems the fine and costs had never been
paid, received and paid over, and the oo-
iect of the appeal WAS to get rid Of the
Judgment entirely, this Item was not due
and payable IS part Of the cost; as to the
other, the transcript had not been made
when the bond Was executed. Held:
That it is reasonable to presume that the
bond would have covered that amount
had the recorder put 1t on the estimate of
the probable costs; that the bond was
sufficient under the circumstances of Inc
case. Reversed and remanded. White,
Presiding Judge.
Yves. BrYsnt vs.. The State, Parker
county. Convicted for stealing hogs
worth less than 900 10, i1ry fned him $50
and one month in jail. The chief defense
was that Bryant took the hogs
openly, under an honest calm that they
were his, with no fraudulent Intent, ana
that the hogs did not belong to the man
they were alleged to belong to. The de-
PENDANT claimed 20 have bought big
stock of hogs from e man called "Hog"
Stephens, snd that an offer to prove that
fact, the testimony was excluded; the
state insisting that to be immaterial IN
less hs would further show that the
stock incladed hogs in McCrsry's Msrk.
It is also complained that the state
showed by te Stim0ny the steal
ing Of s fourth hog by
defendant when she had only charged him
with stealing three; the..three hogs he is
charged with stealing are two black soWs
and sandy spotted barrow. Now, the
state proved thst in addition to getting
those three he also caught q black barrow
about two years old. Held by the court:
The evidence is sufficient. The charge is
full and correct; there is no error in any
of the bills Of exception. Affirmed.
MurreIl VS.. the State, Bell county. APP
pellsnt was indicted for passing forged
instrument ss true, to one j. I. Reed,
purportipg to be promise to pay Reed
$3.50. sad signed by himself and v. c.
Wheat and John Wallace. The instru-
ment was not set out in hsc verbs, be-
csuse 1t was alleged In the indictment to
have been destroyed The chief aefense
WAS as to the insanity ef the defendant:
this issue WAS submitted by the court M
der the proof to jury whs found the
defendant sane. There was motion
made for q continuance, but as there is
NO bill of exception reserved to the &C
ten of the court in overruling it, the OBJ
jections to the charge Of the court urged
are not reserved by bill Of exceptions.
Held by the court: The evidence is suf- |
y; ~