Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-16

to hove explained to the jury the OF ! c
or purpose of its ADMISSION. The jar
sh)ud have been told that the judgtue
Of scquittsI could not be considered
proof VI the peIjdr or the ts!sity OF t
stalemsnt assigned for perjury. Fsi;u
10 DO this WAS reversible error. Reversed
snd remandei. Hurt, J.
Sam Grittia va. the State ;-Eppesl from
Polk. opvicGiOu for murder in the second
degree. Ol tie trisl Of this case the de-
tense attempted 10 impefch States
witness snd DID SO by several witnesses.
TIE state then Introduced number Of
VIII asses TO prove the Eeputstion for
| truth kn0 verscitY 0f the witness sought
to he lmpeached. The district attorney
asked each witness II they were ecQuaint-
ed with the reputation CT the witness tor
truth and veracity, TO which they sns
swered yes. They were thea asked Il
that reputation Veg good or bad and they
answered that Il IVES good. Tier they
were asked Il the witness IVES entitled to
belief on oath sad they answered n the
! Affirmative. Defendant objected 10 this
kstJle Of questions and answers On the
ground that TIE witnesses were testify
leg more rs TO their own opinions than
the general reputation for truth and YER
acity CT the witness. OBI ections overTuIed.
Held, l. The inquiry must be restricted
to the general character Of the party
/ sought TO be impeached. =. The i'm
peachiog witnesses must speak from gen
eTel reputation and rot from private
opinion ss tc whether the character Of the
impssched witness Is good or bad for
truth and yaracity, or az to whether the
general reputation Of the impeached wit
ness is such ss TO eptitle him to credit On
orsh. 3. No venue 10 proven. 4. malics
is not defined. Reversed and remsrded.
Hurt, J.
Bill Brookin VS.. the State; appeal from
Willbsrger. l. A person accused Of
crime committed in this state MY be tried;
tor the crime by tae courts OF this ststE
for such crime, although he may hare
been kidnapped In smother eiste or terri
tory against his will sud without
lawful authority. 2. Tie extent snd char
scter Ct crCss-eXsminstloni is left largely
to :hc discretion OF trial Judge. snd the
exercise Of sucn discretion will not ordi-
nsrIIy De revised ov this court. No re.
versiDle error. filmed. Wilson, j.
John z. Spear vs.. the S.stei appeal
from Y ing; conviction for horse theft.
There is confession Of error in this case
| oY the Assistant Attorney General SIS the
ruling of the court in refusing the appli-
cation for a continuance. The motion
was made on ground Of the
sosence Of two witnesses whose
testimony was prooably true. Applica-
| ton WAS in conformity With The statute
provided IN such csses. Held: There
Is error in ovelruiipe the motion. 1: has
developed since sn appeal was taken in
this case thst the horse which appellant
Is sccused of stealing has been found, and
that it WAS a case of mistaken identity.
While this MISTER csnnot be considered,
| he papers rad sffiisyits showing same
being flied in this court since The tran
script Hss sent up we refer 20 this as 5
matter Of justice TO appellsnt. Reversed
and remsrded. White, P.J.
John Nolsnd VS.. the State; appeal from
Young. This is q companion csee TO
inst Of Spear rs. State reported above,
ard the points therein decided are de-
cisive of this case. Reversed snd re
msnded. White, P. j.
Burrell Robinson vs the Slate; appeal
from Wharton. Conviction for murder
IN the frat degree. Where the evidence
4. IN SOM, particulars corfictins and is