Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-14

| the Indictment in this case, and II h.
knew ct the time Re so voted, thst be had
been SO convicted, such kpo Eledge CT bi,
conviction would be equivalent in Law to
knowing himself not to be quslIf I'd
voter" Il ia objected thst this charge is
erroneous Ia principle snd upon the
weight Of evidence. Held: The instfuc-
ZION ls correct and unabj c:ionsble. Al
1Tned. Wilson, j.
FGsrk Douglas ct 81. vs.. the State; sp-
pesl from Kerr; appeal from Judgment
On forfeited bail bond. GA rehear-
J ing. at the last Austin term this case
was dismissed on the ground thst the
teIm named in the bond when the princi-
| pal was bound tn appear before the Dis.
trict court Of Kerr county was Q time
when legal term Of said court could not
be hald, to wit, the eighth Monday after
i the erst Monday In March, 1887. In this
conclusion the court was mistaken, over
| lookiI g the act Of April 8, 1858, which
Gxes Inc lime Of said court ss CON-
! npencing on the eighth Monday after the
| f.s, Monday IN March Of each year. The
tire stated in the bsil bend was therefore
the proper time. Where q bail bond fs
taken sitter indictment found, II must
name or describe the very cnepse named
n the indic:mant. There appears to be
two counts II this indictment, one c6srg-
iug forgery, and the other knowingly
passing Es true forged instrument, and
The bail bond sets forth the essential ele-
ments OF both o5so SEES. Held: This is
not 6uplicity within the meaning OF the
rule hitherto esteblisheG by this court
The record shows thst Ia decisrirg the
forfeiture OF the bsil bond, J c. Douglas,
one Of the sureties On sold bono, WAS
omitted There is no judgment nisi and
no final Judgment against ssid surety,
end this 10 sssigned as error. Held: The
judgment should have been against III .
principal .Dd sll the sureties. None car
hs omitted. Reversed and remarded |
Wilson. J.
Clifton Douglxe W. The State, nppesl
from Robertson; conviction for ssskul. 10 |
murder. The Indictment alleged the as
eau!t to have been com :nitted with GER
tain gur, a deadly weapon. TIE |
testimony showed the assault TO |
hsVs been committed with pistol,
be court charged toe i1ry that If they
found the assault as charged wss m,de
with gun or pistol, they should convict.
THIS charge is assigned IS error. Held
TIE common law rule In pleading the
ipstrumert of death, is that where the
instrument LAID, and the Instrument
proved are OF the same n.ture, there is
no variance. Affirmed. White, P j.
SUPREME COURT.
of the Gazette.
TYLER, Tex, Oct. l2.-J B. Pesrs vs.
County; appeal from Nscog
toches. The question involved In this
appeal is, "Can county be held Nsble 20
psy ptysician his reasonable fees, who
makes q post-mortem examination at
irq1est?" Held: II We are
20 resort to general principley, We are at
! loss to determine upon what ground
he county is to be held liable for such
ervices. The charges for which coun- (
les are msde liable arc very distinctly I
iefued in Cnsp:er 4, TILE 20.C. c. P. Pro- !
'isiou is there made for inc payment Of
he Justice, the officer who summons the
Dry Of ipquest and the jurors them r
elvee, but for no other expenses Incident ,
o tire proceeding. &C. c P, Articles ,
G77, ct seq We think it wac the inten
ion OF the Legislature to make the coun-
les OF the stile chargesble with the costs ,
nd expenses specified In the chapter ;.
tied, sDd to exempt them from the pss. h.
rent of other expense, eroRingi /
ut Of the enforcement e The crfmiF:f
al lsws. The appellant re Cvered jucg
leus IN the court below for SIo.lSTae :,
crDty a'q1iesces in the i1dgmens and d