Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-29
DAVIS vs.. STATE.
Motion for Rehearins Argued R.,..
tie Court Of appeals at .ns,ie ''''
Hon. George CLARK Interested I, p.,
Davis-After argumcn, the "a. I
submitted on Briefs.
Special to the Gazette

specisl to the Gazette.
AUSTIN, Tex, May 24.-Dav,s
murder case from Tarrant county. W., '.l''' l
to-day in the court Of appeals on = ", a's'sa
rehearinF. Hon. George Clarl,. fl, +.o'loa {,
Stated that his connection with ~, vac no'ioa
nom the sickness ofone OF the ror--,, - AKA.
mad no feeling in the case. 10 7e-s--,r 'al' L.
ance with the parties, and - ~ laiai'
study OF the record only b,s Ia q
hin that the court had 70. .'-''l''i
proper decision. the defeud7,, b., ,'-'asi !
should be reversed. --' INC Tie el,a
M, 1: because the veuire had not bs,--
Ihe court order called for 10 - g" S1a-ls4
Grew only nllety-uile; the .r--', --s cIs,i
sneriL 70 summon sixty m.l srE s.ii--'sl IL
nlhetF-nlne; the sheriff served - a-cg
juror, not gCountiu-, F.r l.g.5 1lF.y-ilg,
which defendant hal objected ~'--.' 10 a! :
:. the change Of venue 5sR.7 g.
sLouIus "i prejudice and cCulira..,-O % y
n ti;. oeo4 granted. The state miss. "a slo2S
pleading have raised the i,sra H. FL. gg slg I
means 81 knowledge Of n.r.,..s m, ..1.lt? d!
oaVlt N behalf OF defau.agr. .-,s 'as a..
then 10 be tried, but no evf,s. ~ 4S4la II
10 contradict defendant on the So pI.a1ei
NJ 'ns cnshge should have been ssr,,-l.
1heIS was no discretion left 10 .sa - s'Al51.
.. The charge OF the court w1e -,
feotive. Under cur statute The co.,. .,l-.sl.7 q.
case dispense in murder cas-. win "a "a IN u
MURDER IN the second degree I, W. r-i',S. q
this, but for the present We r77 ~. w.. cone .
opinions Of this court up TO J-t IL y, On ~
IS bound to charge on all ,E, '-e s1li
IN the case and on all the Tarf.---. l'tleaes
OF the case. He cannot ig1o-. - ~. t'sai
De II ever 50 polluted on its fac. T5s., meme
theories in this case-the o,s Of a.. ARE. aIe W.
defendant with malaca E'o~e-r-rgr. -."'s Lat
ing TO slay his victim. The 1-az- ~ - SEEK
the defense, as it appears in tho -s,, ,-i-s{ Z.
upon defendant testimony anu thai - uai
Cured between defendant ~ g,
deased, the ''lie'' was passed ana .bs IL G
lie returned. Deceased ma Z G.-55c..,..tlll,'
and defendant shOs him This ri-I. '.'--l-2
defense or mEns!aug hter or murdlrig tbs 80, ~,
degree-either theory NAV hay, no., s.-9'l
but the latter was Withdrawn iron, fb, f.olec,
the court leAped from charge OF mn-5.!! ~ \
selt-defers6. Lastly. the court p-~r.. in ~. y
uniting IN his charge that il dglal len. 7-ts-
the dlmculty with view OF killing EvnTs ~.
was either murder in the ftss or s,.7ri -. -
II. NJ. Furman, Esq, for the state a7, $50
as TO the Venlre, thS, l. could lot be 1sssrsffl
unswOrn motive and The record shoy7ef I'5 tty
ors, but the name Of ". H. Percy o-,-! ~
twice, and these might have been two dis1s-.
men. All other objections are raised m. ~
first time in this court regarding tie c5ssI
OF venue. The action Ci The -.
was correct, as twenty witnesses, ~
OF tWenty-iOur sWore they knew OF mo 49,
bination, and fourteen swore there vas no ~,
prejudice as to prevent fair trial. l6s 49,
ant did not except TO the charge Of the conf -.
is now precluded from complaining frorttSsi ~
there did not even appear the possibitv y
murder in the second degree. Mr. Furrr
then, IN order to substsntiats his position. -
viewed the facts and their bearing ygT ri.
nutely,
Mr.. Clark, in reply, stated that he had CO..
fined himself to law, eliminating facts from ~.
sideration, whereas Mr.. Furman had ADpssiI
to the court on the presentation OF facts wi,hUI
discussing the charge
The case was then submitted on briefs By W.
johnson and Mr.. Furman