Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-26

made in this case that defendant, ma.
on account Of the disqualified iurnr :. lli1's,
the case. The conviction is affirmed s'"las /.
John o. Adams VS.. the State -,
county; opinion by Wilson, j. III. vSO5 h,
U. Speer, foreman grand iury - HVlas =
the indictment Just before instead ~ 5,Psseiag .
conclusion are surplusage, and not SEE Il
| indictment. The indictment conclnSs.. o. L,
and IS otherwise sufficient. The evids1s. lpsiJ
ever, does not warrant the convictieS 20.
circumstantial and raises q suspicion y, = = d
ants guilt, but suspicion alone does M. u.sat.
lie conviction. Reversed and reman1si @Sssa,
Earl Reagan VS.. the State, from Fro
opinion by Wilson. j. The eyidero.' y1atS;
and the refusal of the court to chars reelssS.
question: as requested by defendant ~aSa u
wherefore the judgment is reversed an M 'i'e;
remanded. -aa elSs
R; H. Foat, administrator, vs.: the STATE
Parker county; opinion by Wilson ~ NJ
days after adjournment OF an exar,ii,SS,. "a,
Fausler was made to give to the pTa-tss hi
bond for his appearance as q Witnss. '-:s !
bond was forfeited and judgment ~, u
against the suretIes, etc. The ma tt'ste.lsis!
bond. but the state was permitted 10 ~, Y. :.
parol that such requirement was I've ,
end of the examining trial. This is u.
error. Held; The order, If made, sb01ts'- = L
ing court and certified as .a'
of said proceedings, as re9uiT.s lA5
G. c. P, Art. 3I4, otherwise the bona =. y
be enforced. The requirement is Ds-. IaAosi'
proceedings, and as such a matter 0. ~
which cannot be proved by parOt M ~
was executed four days after aujournna-. ~!
no order for it was entered, ana copssS"i =.
Is without authority and nuIlIly. JnT--4l
reversed and proceeding dismissed s-'A
j. H. Bowman et- al. vs.. the State. fro, a.
lin county; opinion by Wilson, j II - w,
have been sufficient had the bail bond on 80
the suit is brought, recited that the pris-'.-5.
was charged with the oEense OF Iorgz-- -
App. 55I. But as this was not done it Ts, !
sential that the offense should be Gescrib1s =
its essential elements so as TO make il -
that an offense against the law was ,Tstsg
against him. lWilisou Or. St. sec I-gi : 80
was not done in the present case ~ -
bond states An alteration Of written ma. -
ment without lawful authority, but fails 70 -
the tenor OF the instrument after 1t was alts,.H
or that it was different from the genuine ips,.-
ment. As described in tina bond the inst-T-,'..-''
was both before and after the alteration an on.
for So. The bail bond is invalid. Judgmgnt =,
versed and proceedings dismissed
James McLau rin VS.. the State. from Cor,,,.,
county; opinion by White, p. j. This -
conviction for wantonly killing four cows n,
der Art. $50, and this statute being for ~, ~
lection OF animals, it was not necessary to az,
ownership. The information did, however n
lege ownership to be in l.. D. White wbirb -
not sustained by the proof. Defendant -
quested and was refused a charge to the 49,.
~
Tense must be proved as alleged, Otherwise ",
jury must acquit. Held: The rnais,i,i
allegations must be proved as alleged, but m
necessary allegations need not then be ur5vsl
But an allegation necessary or not, which Is d.
sCriptive OF the identity Of that which il es,s-
tisl to the charge can never be rejected Is s5,,
plusage. Ownership must be proved As m
because it is description Of the offence. He5r1
though the allegative was unnecessary proof a.
it was necessary. Defendants charge sh01j
have been given. Reversed and remanded,
Thos. CresAp ct al. vs.. the State from Es-
county; opinion by White, P, j. Appeal INN
forfeiture of bail bond in which the offence N
the principal was stated to have been thst y
Illegally marking and branding one head y
meat cattle" This is not an offence co MONICA
under our statute. Where there is no daSpit,
term established for the offence, the bond mrI.
describe its essential elements, so as to show
that an offence under the statute has been CON.
mitted. This the bail bond here did not DO, Id
consequently no legal liability could attach M.
der it. The judgment is set aside and the ~.
ceeding dismissed.
August T. Voss vs.. L. W. Basset, from Wash.
lngton county; opinion by Hurt J. Suit ios
damages for the conversion OF corn and Other
damages. Verdict for S74 so for the corn apdV5
damages. 1t is assigned in error that there wa
no evidence that defendant ever claimed, ETC.,
control OF the corn, etc., or Appropriated h
etc. Held: There is ample eyidens.
Of the conversion of same corn. Under this sans
assignment appellee makes statement not Gov
cred by the assignment, viz that the evidence
not sufficient to sustain the verdict In the 81.
'ence of an assignment to this effect, this GUS.
ion cannot be considered. There is no rsysrs.
BILE error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Il. j. Lewis ct al. VS.. j. d. Merchant ct al.oa
notion for rehearing; opinion by Hurt, ]. Alta
.he jury for the week had been discharged tie
court instructed the sheriff, over sppellangso5
ection, TO summon a jury to try this case. On.
Ter = recent decision or the supreme court MS
". Rep, p. l2ll no court hi as power to do this
The cause is reversed and remanded,