Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-12

liberately false, and that defendant knew
so at the time. Held: We fail to see the
materiality of the matter assigned as per-
jury to the issue of case on trial in any
court. We think the indictment wholly in
sufficient in its allegations as presenting
case of perjury. If the evidence adtuced in
proof OF the crime Of perjury consists of two
opposing statements of the prisoner ana
nothing more. he cannot be convicted. For
if one was delivered under oath, it must be
presumed, from the solemnity of the SAINT
ton, that the declaration was the truth and
the other was falsehCod, though the
latter being inconsistent with what
he has sworn, may form important evidence
with other circumstances against him. And
if the contradictory statements are de
Gvered under oath there is still nothing 10
show which of them is false, where no
other evidence of the falsity is given. II
Green on Ev, 13 Ed, Sec. 259; + Zabrinski.
455; Whar Grim. Law, Sec. 22'5: y
Graft, 1925; , Am. Grim. Rep. 40 Re
versed and remanded White, p. }.
Lee Hughes VS.. the State; from Wash
ington. Appellant stands convicted of the
murder of his wife and the death penalty
was assessed in the court below. I. Whil;
the evidence is wholly circumstantial in its
character, it is conclusive that appellant is
guilty of the murder of his wife under
circumstances of peculiar enormity and
atroclousness. ?. The charge OF the court
was d full. clear and complete presentation
ofsthe law of the case. There was no error
in refusing requested instructions, the law
being given fully in the main charge. 3.
The evidence solely presented q case of
murder in the first degree and the court
only submitted the issue of murder in that
degree. This was correct. rs App, 566.
No reversible error. Affirmed. White, z. j.
H.,
Martin vs.. the State from Bell. |. A cong
tinuance was properly refused, based OH
the absence of Mrs. Sivils. Appellants rros'
posed to prove by her that the first shot
fired was from q shotgun. This was an adj
mitted fact, being proved by all the eye
witnesses. Other facts proposed to be
proved are immaJerial- :. A bill OF eXcep-
tons to the admission of testimony which
shows the question but not the answer, or
that the witness in fact answered at all, or
that the answer was admitted in evidence,
can not be considered. The bill must be so
full in its statements that in and of itself it
will disclose all that is necessary to mani
fest the supposed error. 3. Remarks Of
counsel must be well calculated to have in
jured a defendant before this court viii
reverse on that ground. 4. 1t was proper
for the district attorney in his argument to
ask the jury why the defendants did not on
the examining trial offer the same facts in
extenuation as on the trial herein. It was
shown that nearly all of defendants wit
nesses attended the examining trial as al
tended this trial and that the state devel-
oped the same case in both trials. ). We
do not think the facts connect Tom Martin
with the murder. The case as to him will
be reversed and remanded, and as to W. II.
and George Tweadle it will be affirmed So
ordered Davidson, ].
Volt An,
derson. Burglary. l. The charge is full
presentation of the law. The evidence
supports the conviction. 2. The motion for
new trial as to newly discovered testimony
was properly overruled. The party whose
testimony is claimed as newly found, SAYS
in his affidavit that he was with appellant
all night of the burglary. If this be true
the testimony could not be newly discov-
cred. Defendant, on the trial, swore they
were not together that night. Defendant
could have had same first placed on trial
ia App, l. go, 20 App.l Affirmed. Per
curtain.
Walter Edwards vs. the State; from La
mar. Horse theft. l. Bills of exception
too indefinite without statement of facts
for this court to consider. 2. The second
bill cannot be considered because ii does
not attempt to set out the evidence objected
TO. g. There being no statement OF facts,
we cannot say that the verdict is unsup-
pOfteu W inc eNluenGe. AHlFHed- Ier
curiam.
Frank Franklin VS.. the State: from Tar
rant. Assault to murder. l. The charge
sufficiently presented the law Of the case.
The first requested charge was sub
stantialy given in the main charge. 2.
There was no error in permitting the
witness, Mamie Franklin, 10 testify TO the
threats of defendant. The evidence sup
ports the verdict and judgment. Affirmed.
Per curiam.
Anastasio Arrieto vs.. the State; from
Reeves. Theft. l. No bill OF exceptions.
Charge not complained OF and is correct. 2.
The question relied on in this case IS the
alleged insuficiency of the evidence as to
the identity of the stolen animal as well as
the presence of appellant Ehe place
.chAdfek6ry36r 81