Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-18
ylor W. H Taylor H Taylor w FL Taylor TAYLOR W. IT, TayO

as the old common lsw recital that A. did
the act "Deing instigsted thereto by the
devil, and not having the fear of God be-
fore his eyes,"
Recurring now to the Conner case
The second proposition is that Judge
White therein contradicts his ruling in
the Chester case % CT. App, 577l
on 5 question of the admissible
ty of proof of the contents of &
telegram. The same point, however,
is not involved in each Of these two cases.
In the Chester case, the contents of the
telegram ss TO which secondary evidence
YVES offered, would have been proof bear
ing directly on the guilt Of the accused !;
ard the fullest requirements Of the law
not having been complied whit affixed
testimony was properly rejecfed. In the
other case, the contents Of the Telegram
we're entirely immsterial, and had no
special bearing whatever. The stste was
seeking to account for the oD-produc-
ton of one CT her witnesses as d prsdi-
cate for Introducing his former evidence
in the case, by showing that the witness
WAS then out Of the state; and to estab-
lish this lsst fact offered TO prove by an
other witness that such other witness
had recently received telegram pur-
porting to be from the first witness, end
to have been sent from point IN the In
dian Territory: "The contents of the
dispatch would have added no weight to
that fact, nor even have determined
the fact that the witness had
or had MT received such telegram"
The point at issue was whether the WIT
ness should be permitted to state the fact
of the receipt OF such telegram without
producing or accounting for the telegram
Itself, and it was properly held That he
could so testify. In support OF his ruling,
Judge White, by an evidently clerical
mistake, cites case otter than the one
ne doubtless has in his mind. The author
ities that sustain the ruling sre both nu-
merous and elementary. TStaTkie on
Evidence" 7l6; Silsbury vs.. Blumb, 26
Ills. 2S7; Duncan vs.. Gilbert, 5 butcher
527.l
Ii seems probable that 8 striking sim
ilsrtty between the dots over the letter
al" wherever it occurs in the report of
these two cases may have deceived the
Senator into the belief that al tie other
points in them were likewise similar; or
1t may be that hsyiDg somewhat recently
lost the Conner case ne is not in condi-
ton to judge this ruling i'm
partially. When the judge rules
against an attorney he has two
remediss-one TO appeal his case,
and the other 10 go out on the street and
curse the court. II he is overruled In q
court from which there is no further ap-
peal, the latter is Of course the only al
tentative left; and it Is doubtless, in the
Senator's estimation, an important part
Of that "nobtest heritage which fres men
can leave thei= posterity;" bsquest 60
priceless that he who Eeglects it "istHrice
perhdious and false TO unborn millions"
Time and space alike forbid here
further examination of all the charges and
citations 10 the article. The first sad the
last have been noticed, and the weaker
ones which have In due logical order been
placed in the middle, do not need to be-
answered. u -
Senator Temple Houston is natiYe Of
the Lone Star State, born and reared In
semi-tropic.l latitude where genius
natures esrly, but now 81
resident Of Northwest Texas whose
boandless plains give free room to his
exuberant fancy. The people Of hisssec-
ton have honored him and are proud of
him. We love him for the great name
that he bears and for all that he ought TO
be; we love him not wisely but, it seems,
too well. he Is our Tom Marshall, and
he will be our Prentiss when he gets
wiser. He Is welcome at all times 10
turn his faded Rosinsnte into our fodaer