Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-22
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopses Of Decisions Rendered at the Pres
emit Tyler Sitting-Importan North
Texas Cases Passed Upon.
Correspondence Of the Gazette.

viction for burglary. There is no material
error in the charge, and the Indictment
is sufficient. The evidence fully supports
the conviction, and there was no reversi-
bic error in the court below. Affirmed.
Wilson, J. "A
Felix Burtcher VS.. the State; appeal
from Hays. On motion for rehearing.
The motion having been duly considered,
nothing therein has shown to the court
sufficient reason why this court should
change its opinion of Il former day affirm
ing same, the motion will be refused.
Motion overruled. Wilson, j.
H. Henslee VS.. Edward Eastburn; ap-
peal from Grayson. On motion for re-
hearing. No reason being shown in the
motion why the court should change its
opinion of a former day, the motion will
be overruled. Motion refused. Will
son, J.
}. c. benson VS.. W. J Williamson;
appeal from Gonzales. On motion for
rehearing. The grounds set forth in the
motion having been duly considered by
the court, it is adjudged that the same
be refused. Motion overruled. Wilson,
j.
Thomas H. Miller ct al. VS.. Peck &
Fly; appeal from Gonzales. On motion
for rehearing. There is nothing in the
motion to warrant the court i'll setting
aside the Judgment hitherto rendered i'll
this cause. Motion refused. Wilson, j
Thomas P. Kinnear vs.. 7. n. Jones ct
al. appeal from Smith. There is no err
rOr i'll any of the rulings of the court be-
low or in the judgment. None of the
assignments of error are well taken. No
reversible error. Affirmed. Hurt, J.
B. r. Cobb VS.. 7. j. Powell; appeal
from Clay. On motion for rehearing.
The grounds set forth i'll the motion hav-
ing been duly considered, it is adjudged
that same are untenable and will be re-
fused. Motion overruled. Wilson, j.
A. j Ballard VS.. FentOn Bird eft al;
appeal from Kaufman. Motion to affirm
. on certificate. IN this case the motion to
affirm failing to show that the court be-
low had jurisdiction OF the cause, this
fact renders it defective and will necessi-
tate dismissal Of same. Certificate
dismissed. Wilson, j.
J NJ. Mullins VS.. Matador Land and
Cattle Company, limited; appeal from
Tarrant In this case the evidence fails
to support plaintiff IS cause and the judg-
ment of the court below III favor of de-
1titliiILS was CtIIGCl. NJ tIIOI. Al
tirmed. Hurt, J.
Joseph Crowley vs.. the State; appeal
from Jack. In this case the evidence
upon which the conviction is based is
wholly circumstantial as 80 the taking of
the alleged stolen animal By the defend
ant. He claimed the animal az his prop
erty and admitted that he had placed
his brand upon it, but claimed also that
he had bought it. He never admitted
that he took it from the range or from
the possession of the owner, and there is
no evidence not circumStantial which con-
meets him with the original taking of the
animal. Such being the character of the
evidence the trial court committed a ma
terial error III failing to charge the jury
with respect to circumStantiai evidence,
and for this error alone the judgment will
be reversed and remanded. Wilson, j.
St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern
Railway VS.. Nerger; appeal from Bowie.
On motion to affirm on certificate. The
certificate failing to show the court below
had jurisdiction of the cause, this fact
renders same defective ana the certificate
will be dismissed. Wilson, J.
Elk Parte Jim Jones; appeal from
McLennan. This is an appeal from Il
proceeding of habeas corpus i'll the court
below, wherein appellant was refused
bail. After careful consideration of
the facts in this ease the court is of opin-
that relator is entitled to bail and the
sheriff of McLennan county viii release
him from custody on the execution of a
legal bond with good and sufficient sure
ties in the sum Of $500. White, p. J.
Joe Smith VS.. the, State; appeal from
Lamar Conviction for ,1'disposing of
l. The Indictment is fatally defective be-
cause it does not allege the name of'the
person to whom the property was dis
posed of, or traded, nor that such person
was unknown to the grand jurors. "A
c. A. 494. Reversed and dismissed.
Wilson, j.
Vieno ct al. VS.. Household Sewing Ma
chine Company; appeal frcm Smith On
motion for rehearing. The motion having
been carefully considered, nothing con-
tanned therein is deemed sufficient to
warrant the court in disturbing its judg-
ment of former date affirming this case,
and same is therefore overruled. Will
son, j.
Issy Landa VS.. the State; appeal from
Collin. Conviction for sending Il written
lettFT threatening to accuse one W. H.
Webb of criminal offensa. Held: l.
The indictment is defective in not alleg-
ing that the defendant delivered the
letter with Il view to eztOrting money
sane only alleging that he sent it with
that view. 2. The letter was posted in
San Antonio, Bexar county, and that |
alone has jurisdiction of this ease.
Reversed and dismissed. Wilson, J. /
NOTE Hurt, J., dissents, being of |
opinion that the offense of sending the |
letter may be prosecuted in either BeXar |
or Collin county.
F. H. Greer ct al. VS.. J. S. Daugher- |
ty; appeal from Kaufman. Suit by ap- |
pellee to recover for rents, advances 4
etc. with distress warrant. l. The court 7
erred in refusing to quash the distress |
warrant proceedings, it being shown that |
suit was instituted December 10, 1887, |
and citation was not issued to defendants |
until January II, 1888. The citation |
should have been issued simultaneous |
with the distress warrant. R. S Art. |
3Il9, App. Sec. 35S.l 2. 1t was error |
to render Judgment against appellants as |
sureties upon what purpOrted to be re-
plevin bond. 1t is not an unconditional |
obligation to pay the judgment, as is the |
bond required by statute. The bond is
dependent for whatever validity it may |
haFe upon the validity of the distress
proceedings, and as that pro-
ceeding can not be sustained, said bond |
must fall with it. The Judgment is re-
versed, and as to appellants the suit is