Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-09
COURT OF APPEALS.
syBcpses OF Decisions Rendered as the
Present Austin Sitting Of thu
Ts1Gs Court Of Appeals.
Burr Campbell vs.. the state from
Tarrnnt County Affirmed. Il,
Correspondence of the Gazette.

Correspondence of the Gazette =.
AUSTIN, TEX, May 7-Beason vs.
State, Hunt county; Indictment for and
conviction Of assault with intent to muir
der; two years in the penltentisry The
assaulted party WAS named W. P. Mills.
On the morning of the assault on him by
appellant, he came into Wolf City and
for him with q pistol. After getting into
town Mills procured him pistol and
walked up to where Besson was standing,
and told him that he had heard that he
(Be&soc) WAS locking for him (Mills)
Beason stepped back, drew and COM
menced sho oting. Mills drew also, and
shot FIVE times to Besson's three times
Bsason'5 pistol did not work after his
third fire. The appellant applied for q
continuance on the want Of the testimony
Of Nose Warren, by whom he expected
to prove that he (Bessop) did not expect
to have any diff guilty with Mills. This was
overrule0. Exceptions taken also on the
want OF the testimony OF George Cope
land, by whom he expected to prove that
Mills had in connection with Cunt Perry
ran him, Beason, on. Of Wolf City with g
shotgun. This WAS overruled and defen
dant excepted. 1t was also shown by a
states witness that heIaad heard someone
st Lsnior's holel in Wolf City the night
before the difficulty ssy that he
had come to town from Greenville
that day TO kill map, and
that he would do it before he left. This
question was objected to by defendant,
bus the witness answered in the sflrmS'
tive; but on further examination, the de.
fendsnt WAS not connected with the de-
clsrstion. Held by the court: The evi.
deDce and the charge are sufficient. There
was no error in refusing to postpone the
case. The evidence objected to wss ad-
misssble If the words were spoken by ap.
pellsnt, and IL not spoken bv him the evil
dence was immsterisl and could not have
injured the appellant, and was not reversi-
Bile error. All med.
Kmorough VS.. the State, Williamson
county. Il is charged in the Indictment
that the defendant permitted the game OF
monte ito be played in house under his
control" At the time the game was
played the evidence shows that the house
was in the possession and control Of one
Holcombe, he having rented it from Har-
demsn and defendant, to whom 1t be-
longed. HolcoNbe occupied the house,
carried the keys to it and had the sole
control Of 1t; there is no evidence what
ever thst defendant had any control or
any right to control the house. The
Judgment is reversed and remandedse
Wilson, Judge.
PaDcho VS. the State; Travis. InfornA-
ton for playing monte. In both the
complaint and information, the only ALE
cation as to the name and occupation
given of the accused, is "ore Pancho."
Held: That the complaint and infoTma.
ton are both fsiallV defective. TIE case
OF Victor, s Mexcan, 2lst Texas G A.
R., C. c. P, Art. 430. Reversed and dis.
missed. White, Presiding Judge.
PeTsqual vs.. the State; Travis. H.
formation for playing monte. There 8
no difference except as to the name in the
complaint aud Information in this and the
case Of Psncno above; in this case the
accused is only named and described IS
some Persqusl." Because the complaint
and information are fatally Insult :ient as
to the name snd description of the &C
cused, the Judgment is reversed and the
prosecution dismissed. White, presiding
judge.
Dan Chamberlain VS.. the State; from
ShlO WSll Luis Wa5 ShsS lOl
theft growing out of these facts. The
while riding along the road he caught up
with the defendant snd Ed Clark and
Robt. Chamberlain. That the
defendant, Dan Chamberlain, had q roll
of money in his hand, which saw, and
he offered me $50 for my watch, and be-
lieviDg l WAS making good trade and
han x1yha M tch
was worth, agreed to take the $50
and the defendant proposed to put
the money In the hands of Ed. Clark,
and 1 should put the watch in the hsnds
OF Rob Chamberlain, and that Clark
should count out the money to me. 1
handed the watch to Bob Chamberlain, as
proposed, aud the defendant handed
the roll of money, Jtill rolled MA
to Clark. BIB Chamberlain immedjefeIys
passed the watch to the defendant, ano
Clark did not count the money to me, buys
handed me the roll, which I,jfH'
first refused to receive, sh0,
on taking the money gssand
opening it, found g 81 Uaited States
currency bill, a small piece Of blank pa
per, and tsttered 500 Confederate bill,
which money now have" There is no
evidsace that the argument was .hst the
watch should not be delivered, until Lam
son had counted the money delivered
BY defendant. The court charged: "If
you find from the evidence that
the parties made an agreement to the
effect thss the owner of The watch agreed
to sell it to the defendant for the speci-
fed sum OF $50, that the watch and roll
of money were TO be placed into the pos
session of other parties, and the watch
to be delivered, after the money delivered
by the defendant had been counted by the
owner of the watch; and if you further
believe, from the evidence, that money of
the represented value of $50 was not de-
liVered by the defendant, that he acquired
possession of the watch and eppro-
prieted 1t without paying for 1t,
according to the terms Of the,
ostensible agreement, and that he did SO
by q false pretense End device and with
the fraudulent intent to deprive the owner
of the value OF the watch, such facts
will be sufficient in support of the ofense
az charpadU Held: That the charge