Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-01-26
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SynOpses of Decisions Rendered at the Present
Galveston Sitting of the Court
of Appeals.
COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS.
John P White, P j.. Sam A. Wilson aud Hurt,
Judges.
Correspondence Of the Gazette.
GALVESTON, TEX. Jan. 24.-Nicholas
Cautee VS.. the State; appeal from Webb
county. This appeal is from a judgment
of conviction under an information
charging that appellant did unlawfully
and Knowingly offer for sale an aduIter-
Gus article of food t0-wit: milk The
evidence does not show that defendant
knew the milkewas adulteFated nor that
he even offered to sell the milk There
fore the evidence was held wholly insult
ficient TO warrant conviction Reversed
and remanded. Opinion by White, p ]
James Alexander VS.. the State: appeal
from Travis county. This conviction is
for the fraudulent sale and disposition of
mortgaged property. 1t is not alleged in
the Indictment to whom the defendant
sold or disposed of the property, or that
such person was unknown to the grand
jury. It is essential that the name Of
the person to whom the property was sold
or disposed Of should be alleged, or that
it be alleged that the name of such per
son was unknown TO the grand jury.
Held, That the omission of such an ale
cation is a. substantial and fatal defect in
the Indictment Presley VS.. State, q
App, 494l. Reversed and dismissed.
Opinion by White, p. J.
Jerry Digger vs.. the State; appeal
from Lampasas county. There are two
counts in the Indictment charging "a
that the defendant, acting together with
certain other persons unknown and with
malice aforethought did kill and murder
Ellick Brown, % and that the defen-
dant prior to the commission of said muir
der by said unknown persons, did unlaw-
fully, wilfully and of his malice afOre-
thought, advise, command and encour-
age said unknown persons to commit said
murder, the said defendant not being
present at the commission of said murder
by said unknown persons. On the trial
of the case, after the evidence had been
introduced, the prosecution abandoned
and dismissed the first count Conviction
was had upon the second count and the
punishment assessed at confinement
for life in the penitentiary
A witness testified to the second count
that month or two, perhaps, prior to
the murder, defendant remarked that
Brown would some day be killed and
money would be the inducement, and
further asked witness if Brown had any
money around him, saying that a person
would have to hang him, bruise and burn
him before he would give it up or tell
where it was. He then asked witness if
he would go with some men to rob or kill
Brown. Defendant then refused to
answer questions from witness, saying:
4 have told you too much already -
Some time after the homicide he asked
the witness not to mention what he had
said. Held: This testimony is insufficient.
1t does not show that the unknown muir
derers were advised, commanded or en-
couraged by the defendant in the com
mission Of the crime; nor that he knew
who they were. There may be strong
grounds for suspecting defendant of being
with the murder But the law
demands proof, and such proof as leaves
no room for reasonable doubt of guilt.
The court did not err in overruling an ex-
eeption to the ground that it does not al
ege the names of the unknown parties,
)r give description of them. The evil
lence does not sustain the conviction and
is reversed and cause remand
ed. Opinion by Wilson, j.