Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-10-19
the suit. II ". & W, 5.91131;3 ". aa2299.
Arirlned. Per curtain.

! ]. l.. Burrows ct al VS.. Mary Jane Greer;
| from Nacogdoches. l. The charge OF the
| court, as 4 whole, sufficiently presented the
| law of the case. ,. There was no tender of
| payment. g. As 10 the amount OF payment
on the note there Was a conflict of evidence,
which the jury settled il favor Of appellee,
and we will not disturb the finding. Al
| tirmed. Per curtain.
| jim Young VS.. the State; from Travis.
| Robbery, l. No merit in motion for a new
| trial The facts set ont in the afidavits
attached to said motion are not newly dis
| covered. The atlantis were both incompe-
| tent TO testify, one having been convicted
of horse theft, sentenced, and had accepted
| the punishment and the other stood in
dicted for the same offense as the one for
which appellant stands convicted, and ad-
mitted his guilt. 2. Requested charges
given substantially in main charge. NJ
statement of facts. Affirmed. Per curiam.
Anderson Kyles VS.. the State; from Dal-
las. Theft from the person. l. Eycep-
tons to charge without merit. Tie charge
was responsive to the allegations of the
Indictment. > Statement Of facts filed
after adjournment without an order al
lowing same to be filed cannot be consid
cred in this court. 3. Where no bill of ex-
oeptionS is reserved to the action of the
Fcourt in overriding motion for contin
uance the ruling will not be revised on APP
peal. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Jack Echols VS.. the State; from Harris.
Assault to murder. /. Appellant reserved
no bill of exceptions TO the ruling of the
court. overruling the motion for continu-
ance, and the action of the court il that
respect cannot be revised. > There was L
conflict of evidence, but the jury have set
tied it against appellant. Affirmed. Per
curianl.
D. ". Robinson VS.. the State: from Har-
ris. Theft of cattle. l. No bills Of eXcep-
ton or statement of facts in the record. :.
The charge is responsive 10 the indictment
and presumed correct. We cannot pass on
other questions raised because there IS no
statement of facts. Affirmed. Per curtain.
a. English vs.. the State; from Harris
Forgery. l. The uttered forged instrument
was set out in haec verba . The proof
correspondent with the allegations of the in-1
dictment, and there was no variance be-
tween the instrument set out and that Of
fered in evidence. ,. As to the admissible
ity of a forged instrument attempted TO be
passed at about the same time, the court did
not err in admitting same. No errors.
Affirmed. Per curtain.
John Arto vs.. the State; from Harris.
Burglary. /. The facts are sufficient. The
charge was correct. The motion for new
trial was properly overuled. Affirmed.
Per curlam.
Ex-Parte James Wright, habeas corpus;
from Travis. l. In order to avail himself
of the writ Of habeas corpus in this charac-
ter of proceeding, the applicant must bring
himself within the rules prescribed by ar
ticles SIG and 945 of c. C. P, governing
such cases. This he has not done. He
does not show that he is too poor to pay the
costs, and that he has made the proper AFT
davit, etc, etc. Costs constitute part of
the Judgment. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Texas and Pacific Railway vs.. Il. B. kute-
man; from Wood. /. That there was dis
elimination as shown by the facts is settled
adversely to appellant in 20 Texas, 465, as
the question here is the same as in that
case. .. The undisputed evidence shows
that appellee was charged more for car
load of lu.n Der going distance Of $50
miles than other parties We're charged for
same freight going 23S miles over the same
road and in the same direction, and it is ap
parent from the record that the discrimina-
ton was wilfuily made. Affirmed. Per
curiam.
Harrington & Goodman VS.. W. B. Robin
son; from Anderson. l. We cannot reverse
because of q conflict in the testimony. ,. The
judgment for costs against Gammage 81
Gammage will be presumed correct in the
absence of a showing by them TO the con-
trary. g. The judgment recites that the
bond was given. Appellant would hardly
be heard to complain that a Judgment was
rendered against his sureties. They
should be complaining parties if any. At
frmed. Per curiam.
Will Brown VS.. the State; from Red
River. Theft of cattle. l. Motion for con-
tinuance properly refused, and no error in
overruling motion for new trial based on
the failure to continue the case, because in
the light of the record and the evidence or
motion for new trial it is made to appear
that the testimony (absent) was no. prob
ably true. ?. The charge is a correct expo
sition of the Law of the case. Affirmed.
Per curiam.
The largest s,sss SC s'sssss-
Variety of sz5sesssF,7@4s-S
Molasses to bsS:asF-
Found iNsReSss
GarSe Bought at
- Turner & Dingees.