Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-15
ny interest therein; or,I that
q owned 6rV interest inM the

| he owned any interest ina the
table or bank, or was in anv manner COZ
nected IL its operations. His mere pres
! epce st the place where the cff9nse was
being committed, in the absence OF other
facts showing that he participated, or WAS
! concerned or interested in the commits
! sion OF the ofiense, does not warrant the
conclusion that he is guilty OF the charges
contained in these indictments. Re-
versed and remanded. Wilson, judge.
Groves vs.. the State, from Collin
county. Conviction for theft from the per-
son. Held: In theft general or from the
person, the taking must be without the
consent Of the owner; or, though lawful
J with consentJ possession Of the property
must be obtained by some false pretexs,
or with intent to deprive the owner OF
the value of the property and appropriate
it to the use OF the taker, with an actual
appropriation. II there be consent 10 the
taking and this consent Is not
! obtained By false preteEt, or there
is no intent to deprive the owner
CT the value accompanying the taking,
| there can be no theft under articles 1850,
| 748. That there was no false pretext
used by appellant is clear; hence, to con-
Wet under this indictment, the proof
must snow that the fraudulent intent ex-
listed at the time of the taking; this must
be shown to the jury beyond reasonable
doubt, and to this court with reasonable
certainty. This the evidence in the case
fails to do. Reversed and remanded.
Hurt, j.
Sullivan vs. the State; from Hunt coun-
ty. Conviction for burglary. Reversal
of tais case is vested on the
bill of exception in the record
to the effect, that when the case
was called for trial the rule was asked to
beIenforcsd; the tstesproposedsto use W.
NJ. G. Randall, the owner Of the property
stolen, and the building broken into, as
the first witness and the District Attor
ney stated that he wished the aid OF the
witness In the examination Of other wit
nesses. After Rsndall's examination in
chief The court excused him from the rule;
and ne remained in court. After the exam
nation in chief the state did not put Ran
dali on the stand, put he wss called to
the stand by the defendant. Held: That
the bill Of exception was not well taken.
Affirmed per Curtain.
George Lee, Joe Schmidt and Charles
PARROT; from Lamar county. Lee was
indicted for forgery, Schmidt and Parrot
were sureties and his recognizauce, the
amount of which WAS $500. Judgment
nisi was taken on the recognizsnce Octo-
Der %, 1885, and October %, 1886, Lee
surrendered himself to the sheriff, was
placed in jail snd in the following No
Vember was tried ard convicted. Schmidt
aud Parrot answered the sci is. Held: /.
The surrender Of this principle being after
the judgment nisi, Is no rea on why the
Judgment nisi should not be made final
against his sureties. 2. That
| there WAS no authority Tor
rendering judgment for $50; that the
judgment must be for the $500 or moth
ing is met by article 456 Code OF c. ?
and the case Of Barton VS.. the State, ~
Texas 25l. 8. As the indictment alleged
the sl6rgery TO have been committed at
date subss quent TO that OF It's filirg, II
WAS fatally detective. and the District
court hsd no Jurisdiction CT the case, that
is the Jurisdiction CT the court had not
attached to the particular case. But 1t
does not follow from this that the sure
| ties can escape their liability On the rec
ognizsnce. Had Lee responded the Dis
trict Attorney msy have discovered the
defect and obtained BE order placing him
in custody until sufficient Indictment
could have been preferred. Affirmed.
III uIl u uNSS'
Melvin VS.. the State Of Texas; from
Wllbsrger. This was case, originating
| in Justice court, where the appellant WAS
convicted OF al ARRAY; be appealed to
the County court; in that court motion
was msde to dismiss the appeal on the
grounds that the appeal bond was rot
given within ten days. 1t appeared that
within the ten days the appellants sttor-
ney presented to the justice bond, but
which was not signed by the principal
and one which the sureties were IN
known to the justice. These otiac-
lions were urged by the justice and
thereupon the attorney for the appellant,
carried the bond away with him. The
conviction was had on the l4th OF March,
1887, on the 26th of March. 1887, the
bond that was first presented, was de-
posted with the justice, with the certiti-
cate OF i justice OF the peace OF Harde-
man couutv, as 20 the solvency OF the
surties. Held: Thst the judg ment OF
the County court dismissing the appeal
was correct. Per Curism.