Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-03
Correspondence Of tho Ga

fGEf1a. 4 ~ M CoO6S L. Clb
iEH> rEEN council has tn
~ ,&Z'%rTn power to chang
nm t1tS\EF ! Il the ss!srY Of an
! M ffyi,s ~ OF the city Officers
| ms <.=z9< There was no er
! ! !: !: !: !: 4:
80 - -. ~ ~Sfl TOR in the j1dg
sh - sEy nent Of the cour
MEssv- ~ hEu below IN holdin
sLjE" Ns3a Nh Hui this to be the law
| IN h,sksJSlEsg; NIX Affirmed. viii
.A%l4saa5 Bill Robinso
vs. the State; appeal from Colorado; con
victicp fer murder in the second degree
No fundamental errors are shown in tn
record. More If the tills OF exception
were well taker the charge & the cour
was full, fair AID correct, l1d the evi
deIce is sufficient TO sustain the convlc
ton. No error. Affirmed. Wilson,
| o. ]. Rowland, administrator, vs. W
Il. W. Smith ct al appeal from Dsllas
l. Where an attachment is levied upol
pre- perty subj C! to execution srd pend
ing the suit Tor defendant in sttacbmen
! dies, this f7ct will not vncGte the sui.
There ives no error in sustaining the de.
murrer to appellants petition. Affirmed
| WIlsop, j.
jacob Hendricks vs. the Safe; sppee
from Williamson. On motion for rehesr
irg. l. The alleged forged instrument
as 1t stood in the Indictment, un6ided BY
inuendo averments WAS not void upon its
face and was clearly forged instrument
| within the meaning Of the law. The mo-
ton for rehearing is overruled. Will.
son, j.
Jacob Hendricks vs.. the State; appeal
from Williamson. This is q companion
case to that of Hendricks vs. the State
reported above, the conviction in the
former case being for passing as true O
forged instrument, snd in this case for
uttering forged instrument. The points
decided in the former case aud on q
former day OF this term are decisions OF
both cases, and the motion is overruied.
Wilson, j.
q. Harris vs.. Seth Miller; appeal from
Dallas. 1t is apparent Of record that ap-
pellant brought this suit, knowing the
amount in controversy WAS not within
the Jurisdiction OF the court below, and
sought iraudalently to impose upon the
juri. diction Of said court. Affirmed.
Wilson, j.
Keystone National Bank vs.. A. HIncho
man; appeal from Dallas. This Is Q suit
by appellant aud two other parties, sp-
pellee believing that the other two par
ties had been served with citations, they
being lis Die for the claim and residents
Ct Dallas county, answered to the merits
Appellant dismissed as to the other par
ties. After finding that the other parties
we're not sued appellee filed motion
asking leave to withdraw Ills answer, and
II Lad N ho enod In, h..
county of his residence. This motion
WAS denied by the Justices court, but on
appeal to the court, the motion WAS eus.
tanned. and he filed his plea Of privilege.
The docket was marked ss citation havii e
been served upon all parties, when in
fact Hinchmsn WAS the only psrty served.
Held: the plea OF privilege came too late
There is not sufficient proof that appel
liant deceived appellee as regards the
serving Of citation on the other parties.
Reversed and remsnded. Hurt, j
Isaiah Pipes VS.. the State; appeal from
Freestone. Conviction for perjury. .
II q party becomes witness for himself,
when his testimony Ia not BY Law receiv
able. he may still commit the crime Of
perjury. 2. II the witness be illegally sd :
mitted to testify, and he swesrs falsely,
such swearing will be perjury. 8. The
witness need not have been brought into
court by suoI Or 10, nor need be be COM
PEELED TO testify, for If be does give evil
dence under oath, 1t is the same whether
relur c.antly or voluntarily. 4. II was
not necessary for the Indictment to sl,eee
that appellant voluntarily appeared and
testified before the grand jury. No err
TOT. Affirmed. Hurt, J.
Jim GslbTesth vs. the Safe; appeal
from Wise. Conviction for embe zzle-
ment Of horse. The testimony of wit
nesses for an examining trial
can be proved by parol, where
the proper predicate is laid
By showing tha. the Witnesses did not
re side in tae state, and that their written
testimony as taken at the examining trisl
wss lost. No reversible error. Affirmed.
Hurt, j.
Thompson < Clevinger vs.. Brown &
Kemper; appeal from Tarrant. II sp-
pears that writ Of csrtiorsri issued and
WAS served on December, 90, 1887, and
WAS made returnaole to the nexs term OF
the County court which convened the first
Monday in January. At the March
term Of the County court appellees
filed q motion to dismiss
the certiorari, which motion YVES sus.
tanned. Hsld-SIch q motion cannot be
sustained unless made and presented at
the re urn term Of the writ. Reversed
snd remsnded. Wilson j.
H. 81 Moore VS.. the State; appeal from
Colorado. Conviction for assault with
Intent to murder. The court below .iE1
structed the jury that If they ''founut
from the evidence that the defendsntssOr
either OF them, fred upon the decSesed |
with deadly wespop, with the iHsens TOD
Kill or do him @serias3
bodily injury as would probably |
sud in death, and that il they
u either Of them had killed thesdeceased,
'uch killing would have been murder, as
murder and malice Is hereinafter de-
lued;" that il death did not entus Aey
would be guilty Of assault with intent to |
murder. Hello: Erroneous. In order
10 constitute the # .nse of assault with
intent to murder two things must concur;
lrst, an assault; second, a specifl; intent
% kill. Without simultaneous concur
ence Of these two constituent elemsnts,
here csu be no assault to murder. NJ
ntenf, save the specific one to kill,
Will be sufficient. 2. There WAS evil
ence tending to show that the homi-
ide WAS committed under circumstances
educfDg il to mRnslsuohter and