Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-10
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopsis CT Decisions Rendered at tho Pres
ens Tyler Sitting.


Correspondence Of the Gazette.
IYLHR, Tex, Or. S-Arthur Ire-
son VS.. STATE; appeal from Nc
ogdoches. Conviction tor aggravated
assault and battery, committed By strlk-
ing person in church where people
had assembled for religious wors nip.
HELD: The complaint and information
being sufficient, and the verdict supported
BY the evidence, we will not disturb the
.conv:c ion. Aft med. Per Curlam.
The iison Illuminating Company, J.
M Stljiman aud J ". Cement, vs.. Farm
ers' National Bank; appeal from Alder-
son. rhe appellants hsve failed IN this
case 70 assign erForF, or to brief the case,
and appellee suggesting delay and asks in
eff nance of the csse with 10 per cent.
damages. Held: The case Is affirmed
with 10 per cent damages for delay.
Affirmed. Per Curism.
Baldwin Lewis VS.. the sState; appeal
from R obertson, conviction for burglary.
There was 10 bill Of exception taken to
the overruli g OF the motion for contin-
usnce. Held: There being no bill Of
exceptions this court cannot reverse the
seton of the court below in overriding
the motion for q continuance. Evidence
|
error In the conviction. Affirmed. Per
Curtain.
W. j. Riley vs. the State; appeal from
Harris. There are no statement OF
facts or bills OF exceptions filed 10 this
case. Held: There being no error sp
parent of record, the judgment Of the
court below will not be disturbed. Al
f1rmed Per Curtain.
James Starr vs. the State; appeal from
Upshur. When both parties announce
ready for trial and enter into triEl OF
the suit and on suggestion OF DEFENDANTS
counsel the announcement is with
drawn and the case continued. Held:
That on flal trial, where the
jury found the special plea OF
former Jeopardy untrue, the finding WAS
not contrary 10 the law and evidence.
There is no error In the coLvicion.
Affirmed. Pr Curtain.
Precisno Gomez vs., the State; appeal
from Gonzales. There is no statement of
facts, or bills OF exception In the record.
We fad no reversible error apparens Of
Re cord. Affirmed. Per Curtain.
John Hollsad VS.. the Stste; appeal from
Gonzales, conviction for thett Of biie OF
cotton. Where tha-e is neither stale
men: Ct fac:s, nor bille OF exception sent
up as 6 psrt of the record, this court will
not revise the finding of The cour! below,
unless OF soma reversible error apparent
OF record. Affirmed. Pr Curiam.
John R. Moore vs. the Stste; sppesl
from CorYell. There being nc exception
to the ruling of the court below ovsrrul-
ing the motion for continuance, this
court will not rsvIse the luiiDg, No
reversible error in the charge and the ev-
idence suppor Is the conviction. Aft med.
Per Cur!sm.
WI Rleyv5. the Sasts; appeal from
harris. Conviction for forgery. This Is
a second nviction OF the same appel.
liant. There being no exceptions, no
statement Of facts, ard no assignment Of
errors and finding no reversible error
apparent of record, we will not dis,
turb the finding O: the$.ccu. below
Affirmed. Per Curinm. :.
Dave Ross vs. the State, sppeal from
CoyYen, conviction for rape. Where
motion for q continuance Is INSIDE and
overruled and 1t appears that the absent
sestlnchY Is 'immsserial this court will
not revise the ruling Where counsel for
she. safe makes Improper remarks to the
jury, end the court insttucss them that
they will disregard>such remarks, held:
The remarks could 'noSsreasona DIV have
injured the rights ct defendant. Affirmed.
Per Curtain.
B T. Arnold snd R T. Baugh VS.. the
State; appeal from Neccgdocnes. For.
feifed bailbond. The bailbond is valid in
sll respects. None Of the assignments Of
error are well taken. There is no error
for which we would disturb the verdict.
Affirmed. Per Curiam.
W. Il. Woodley VS. j. A. Hordrider-
Appeal from Harrison. This suit was
besun in justice court by Appellee.xgsinet
appellant snd j. a. Downs, WHO WAS
mother.in law Of the justice offhs peace.
Appellee, plaintiff. In the court below, dis
missed ss to Downs and proceeded to
trial snd. obtained judgment against sp-
peilsnt. Appellant ;compiairs that the
justice did not have',j1risdicticn or au-
rHurity to enter sn order disni ssing as to
Downs, his mothex.in-law. Held: The
disconpnuance in the justice Court did
affect the validity Of the judgment IS to
the appellant, and even If it did, the trisl
de novo on appsal in county court cor
rected the error. No reversible error.