Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-08

tntes the criterion in passing upon the is
sue OF guilt Ia this case. Failure to
charge on the law OF seif-detenss was
fundamentally erroneous. az App. 53S
70 App. 274.) Reversed and remanded
Wilson, j.
Dombey Byrans vs.. the State: from
Webb. Assault to murder. /. During
The term the attorney for appellant male
out statement of facts, but the district
attorney would not agree TO sumo, say
ing ne hal no tins to examine and tell :
Ing the former 10 get an order allowing
ten days 10 tile statement OF facts, ana
that ne would examine after court ad-
11Irued. The statement Was then pre-
srn:ei 10 the judge W no refused to approve
same OH the ground that he wanted
oInsel 30 agree TO a statement. He
GRANTED an order allowing ten days for
Hing same. When the district attorney
left he took the statement with him
promising to return IT. He never did SO +,
neither did he or the court ever Ale any
statement. He'll: Appellant used due
diligence, was entitled to q statement of
facts, and his failure to get same will
necesiliate a reversal of this cuse. Is
app. 1915 App. 1872 App. G37.
reversed ami remnnded. White, +. j.
Wess Riley vs.. the State; from Nor
rls. Murder in first degree with life
penalty. l. The evidence and charge
are both sufficient. 2. There are no bill 5
OF exception anG no errors apparent of
record. Affirmed. Per curtain.
j. A. Bainster VS.. J. T. Sullivan;
from Navarro. /. The account was
neither sworn to nor proved, nor was the
delivery of goods to appellee or TO COM
mon carrier proved. No error. Al
brmrd. Per curtain.
j. II. Harris rs. the State; from CAL
lahsn. Murder in second degree. /.
There was no error in refusing u con-
iinuance, the absent testimony being
supplied on the trial save some that was
not probably true. 2. Question of man
slaughter not raised by the evidence. 8.
The evidence fully supports the convic-
tea. nni the charge of the court was
full and correct. Affirmed. Per
curiam.
H. p. Leverett. admir-, vs.. W. B.
WherrY; from Rusk. l. Claims were
properly verified and presented to appel
liant aul rejected. 2. Conclusions Of
law aud fact of the trial judge all cor
rect. AihTme1. Per curinm.
J. S. Schwartz VS.. Lowman, Sons &
w.. D., iEONl ' III LdNIt. - tHc HiudeN IL
for attachment was substantially suff-
Client, aud The motion 10 Quash was
properly overruled. Affirmed. Per
curtain.
Frank Harrison VS.. the state, fro IN
Tarrnnt. Motion for rehearing. l. We
adhere to our opinion of n former day.
affirming the judgment herein. Motion
ovsrrulrd. Per Curtain.
Robert Brown vs.. the state, from Dali
las. Robbery. 1. Indictment good and
charge sufficient. No statement of facts
or bills of exception. Affirmed. Per
Curtain.
Lou Goats VS.. the state, from Cole
man. Burglary. l. Appellant ex-
PLANTATION of possession was not u con-
fession and was admissible in evidence,
though made while under arrest. 2.
No error lii charge or any ruling Of the
court. Affirmed. Per Curiam.
Cul Liuceum vs. the state, from Bur-
net. Motion to dismiss appeal. /.
The evidence does not show nu escape
within HE menuing of the law. Motion
overruled. Per Curiurn.
Napoleon Mcdaniel va. the state,
from Bowie. Motion to dismiss appeal.
|. Ii is clearly shown thar pending this
appeal appellant has escaped from GUS
tOdy and is now a fugitive from justice.
Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
Per Cur;am