Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-21

L run fti h..,Ht III LUIS case IVES DOt
M y.ts, u 4 flied until niuetee q
HJ/hc ~ days sitter aej ourn-
/. ]
EsxssSSS. ~ sa.H, ment. As cause
| y 81 ! sMa for not ding Soon
AIE,v- "a ia NM er appellant flies
NM, l1ltsaS ia EEt sn sff1 iavit show
WI AEgfF.#tI tT irg that the state
e.SsSyES>zi2F X ment was prepared
| "A i@--@ on the tenth day
After adjournment, and harded TO tee
district attorney, VINO refused TO agree TO
same. Defendants attorney told the dis
trics attorney be would agree TO any
changes which the district attorney
might make. The district attorney tod
MIN he would ssres to no psrt Of the
statement. Datendaups attorney Wts
obliged to 90 & On train same day. ZAP
rellaat SEEKS the sid of tbs act Of March
| 8. 1887, and asks the court 20 consider
the Statement. Hsld: La order to syail
| himself CT the provisions Of t6s ysct OF
/ March 8, 1887, appellant must chow tAst
the faiiule 20 tile statement Was not .Ess
isalt or the fault OF his attorns YIhEt was
the result Of causes beyond his eaptTots
| Such diligence is not shown. H2J@ IT.
party is alone charged With 8Ae
commission CT an ofsnse, proof thas
| another or others .cte d With him, may CT
may hot ne admissible. this depending
upon the rule CT evidence. The punish
ment Tor the offsnse with which appellant
is charged is The esnc, whether com.
nltted by enc CT more persons. II tbs
punishment WAS greater Ihere committed
oy TWO or more plscns, as Is In come
instances the case, lite iaIt.es being sep
srateiy indictet, evlderce that TWO or
more parties committed the ohense would
be admissible, but the court should
charge that the party can only be
assessed the lesser penalty. Proof that
another acted :cgEther with Ep1el'snt
was admissible. L. is il the discretion
OF the court 30 admit evidence st Any TIN
before the conclusion of the argument Ii
It appears neces ssry to due sdmiais:Ia-
ton Of Justice. No reversible error.
Aft tined. Hurt, j.
| Ned Moore vs.. the ate; appeal from
Robertson. Conviction for burglary 1
II appellant wished to TAX advantage on
appeal CT remarks Of the District Attor-
ney to his pr JUDGE, he should have
taken bill Of exec ptlon thereto. The
evidence, indictment and charge sre srffi
cient. No reversible error. Per ou:lsm.
John Melon vs.. the State; appeal from
| Archer. Conviction for rape. The charge
of the cour. WAS fall ard correct. The
Indictment Is sufficient, and there is no
ruhng Ct the court that will be revised.
Aft med. Wilson, j.
Ben Fuller vs the State; appeal from
McLenDsn. The Assistant Attorney Gen
eral has made q legal showing to the
{ f &C. that pending this s peal TIE sppel-
Ism. has escaped from custody, and moves
to dismiss the Sppesl OF tlat ground.
Held: Motion sustained and appeal dis
missed. Per curtain.
Jacob Hendricks vs.. the State; appeal
from Williamson. CoLvictiol for forg-
| cry. The instrument alleged to have
been forged WAS in these words: "Pre-
ecriptions fpecislty. Taylor, Texas,
--, lSS-. NJ Bought Of DR..
+. T. Cock, drugs, medicines, toilet arti-
Giles, booke, ie~elry, etc. all bills due
stone, please lie: bare have the sum of So
dollsrs In crosses and charge same to
Dr. F. T. Cook" Held: /. An order for
merchandise may be the subjec. OF
forgery. 9. The main question to be de-
cided on this appeal is, whether the in
dictment is valid snd ST fiji Gent, withou.
inusDdo, or explanatory syarmen.s IS
20 re words "bare" and "grossesn used
! IA LLG SiL. gu iOj O1uCEs uS
| Indictment is sufficient and is
not likble to the objections urged.
, o. i.s face the instrument WSs en order
for merchandise, or gcode, CT property CT
sorc kind, and 70 explanation, or aver.
mint CT ex:rinsic facts WAS necessary 10
shCw that ouch was It's character. While
We cannot know Whist kind Of property
was sought to be obtained, We do know
1t had soma value, snd It is in nate-isl IS
to what kind Of property was sought to
be obts!red By means OF the forged in
atrument. No error. All med. White,
2 j.
Jaco % Hendricks vs the S!ste; appeal
from Williamson. This Is companion
case to that of Hendricks vs.. the State
reported above. Appellant was indicted
and convicted for uttering or passing the
same forged instrument. which WAS the
basis OF prosecution in the case decided
above. The same questions are raised in
this case. The opinion in that case is de-
cisiTe OF the points herein involved. No
reversible error. Affirmed. White, P j.
Buth & Scarborough vs.. F. 81. Cbensult
ct al. appeal from Red RIVER. Ibis is 3
suit by appellants on judgment recov-
cred in Mississippi in October 1880. Suit
WAS instituted in Red River county Jan.
uary 6, 1888. Appellees pleaded the Stat,
ute Of limitations Of the state OF Miss!ss-
ppi which bars an action On s judgmen.
after the lspse Of seven yesrs from the
rendition theTecf. Appellants replied TO
tnis plea thai sc the time OF the rendition
Ct the Judgment, appeliecs had removed
from tue s.ste Of Mississippi to Texas,
and had since resided in said state OF
Tsxis. Judgment for defendants
Held: Under Art. 267S OF the statutes Of
Mississippi, Limitation has never COM
mented to run in favor of appellees, be- |
CAUSE Of their absence from said state. |
r versed and remanded. Wilson, j.
]. T. Frisbie We. the State; appeal from |
Henderson; conviction for SANDER. l |
Where bills OF exception ere filed after
adj ournment they cannot be considered. |
Q. The allegation in the indictment is that
the defendan. did 'fslsely, msliciously
aud wsntonly ssy of and concerning one
Tsllis Miller, that she, the said Tails |
Miller, was unchaste and not virtuous,
and that he, the sald J. T. Frisbie, could |
At any time have seminal cernal INFER
course with her, II an opportunity pre-
sented itsen in this, that he could get her
At o private, secluded place." Held:
Proof must correspond with the allega-
ton. Appellant is nowhere shown TO
have said Of and concerning
Tails Miller that she WAS "uD-
chaste snd not virtuous." This is
not substantially proven by growing that