Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-30

1t is commended that although in 1sS7local option
was regularly adopted, new election in 1883
dered less than two years after the first election
contrary to statute and second, the local option
has ceased, as in an election held for the whole
county in 1890, the measure was defeated
Held: Even if the election OF 1883 was invalid,
the local option would prevail under the election
OF 1887, and the election Of 1890 in the whole
county with an adverse result did not repeaIthe
local option previously carried in the precinct,
us app. 491; q app. 412. Affirmed. n
Bob Brownlee VS.. the State from Camp county;
opinion by White P. j.: The verdict and judges
ment in this case are directly against the evil
dence, and the cause is reversed and remanded-
Will Cole vs.. the State, from Brown county;
for card playing in public house. viz school
house. The offense committed on Sunday :,
and it is contended that the house not being
used for educational purposes on that day. was
not then public house. Held: The house By
ing occupied during the week for school pun
poses retained its chsracter-on Sunday, whether
use of it for religious worship becomes thereby
immaterial. The case being misdemeanor.
the charge OF the court in the absence of excep-
tions viii not be revised. Affirmed.
James carp vs.. the State, from Brown county;
opinion by White, 2; J. This is companion
same, except that appellant here did not play but
stood watch for those playing to keep them from
being caught. Under P: c., Art. Is, this made
A. Y. Alice vs.. the state, from Atassosa coun-
ty; opinion by Wilson j. Alice was surety on a
forfeited Schneider was sentenced and sent to
the penitentiary from some other county, but at
the time Of forfeiture he had made his escape.
The appellant proved the conviction. and it was
proper to permit the statet prove in rebuttal the
escape from custody, without special pleading o
that effect. There was no valid reason for the
nom appearance of Schneider, and the judgment
on the forfeiture was correct. There is no ma
terial variance between the judgment nisi and
the citation, and the Judgment nisi was properly
admitted in evidence. 10 app, 1901. Affirmed.
H. B. Reed vs.. the state, from Eastland coun-
ty; opinion by wilson,. The indictment al
leges the time of the commission of the offense
as ION or about the sth day of December one
thousand eight hundred aud nine.' The time
mentioned is so remote that the prosecution is
barred by limitation, and the Indictment is de-
fectiye in matter OF substance. Reversed /aRd,
A. B. Caruthers VS.. W. C. Cherry ct all, from
Hill county; opinion by Wilson, J. Suit hSe
appellant against Rppellees on two promissofF
notes, appellees plead failure of considerationIh
account of fraudulent representations and lg5ut
in claim in reconvention. Appellees recoYfred.
The court should have instructed the lug that
appellee had the burden of establishing the fail
ure of consid Grafton and the jury should also
have been instructed that appeIlees had to
show that the representations were false. as to
material matter, that they were relied on and
did influence appellee to purchase from appel
liant. These propositions not clearly pre-
scented by the court, although the attention of
the court was called to them. Rev ersed and re-
mandsd. -
R. c. Claiborne VS.. R. D. PicIens & Co. from
Hill county; opinion by Wilson, J. AppelIees
Bueu appellant ana one Kelly IN Justice court.
Appellant resides in Brown county. The resi-
dence Of Kelly being unknown, citation on him
was had by publication. Appellant fled plea
to the jurisdiction, claiming the privilege to be
sued in the county of his residence. The pea
was oVerruled. Held: This ruling was erroneous.
Under r. s., Art. 1898, Sub. and 4, etc., where
the residence of some joint defendants is known
and that of others unknown suit must be
brought in the county where one OF the resident
defendants resides. The plaintiff is not en-
titled TO sue q resident defendant in a county,
other than that of his residence. Reversed and
remanded.
G. 7. Armstrong vs.. the State, from Collin
county; opinion by Hurt, j. Andrew Arm
strong was indicted for theft as principal and
g. T. Armstrong, the appellant, as accomplice.
There is no proof that Andrew committed the
theft, hence this conviction is wrong. II An
drew was not guilty, but G.. IT,, knowing not to
have any right to the property, did fraudulently
advise, command and encourage Andrew to take
it, then he would be principal. In cases of
doubt the pleader should charge as principal
and accompi1ce, for if he fails in establishing
Andrews guilt but shows regarding G.
I. as above stated, then q. T. is guilty.
as principal. But if Andrew Is GuilfFtl
then the above facts constitute G. T. AMI
complete. 1t is emphasized here that the slate.
cannot be compelled to elect upon which coess
it will prosecute II there is proof tendines16-
support both. Reversed and rernanded 2.555
L. 81. Maddox VS.. the State, from [hche
county; opinion by Hurt, J. Convicso on for
perjury. Appellant had testified in behalf of
CLARK, indicted for robbery, that Clark was-at
the time when the robbery was alleged to have
been commit ed-sbout four to six miles from
the scene Of the robbery The indictment in
this case p leads the proof Of the perjury BY