Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-04-24
COURT OF APPEALS.
DECISIONS RENDERED AT THE
PRESENT AUSTIN SITTING.
Ron. John P. White. P. j.; j. NJ. Hurt and
W. L. Davidson. Associate Judges.
P. Walton, Clerk.

under article 213, P. c.. yet the court erred
in charging the jury as TO a prosecution fer
the purpose of eXtorting money from an
other, or for the purpose of securing the
payment or security for 4 debt due the ac-
cused by the person prosecuted. This was
not the offense charged o 1t was reversi-
bic error for counsel for the state in his
argument to refer to the failure of the de-
PENDANT to testify as witness in his own
behalf. 3. 1t was error for the court to
charge that the jury must believe that ap-
pellant was not guilty of malicious prosecu-
ton in order to acquit. This charge was
promptly excepted to at the time it was given.
4 1t was reversible error for the state to
introduce in evidence the verdict OF acquit-
tal5againSt Hackett ~ App. 269 Re-
versed and remanded. Hurt, j.
J. V. Edwards ct al vs. the State: from
Cooke. This is an appeal from judgment
final on forfeited recogniZance. The only
question in the case is as to whether the
recognizance reciteS an offenSe. l. 1t would
be no ofense under our statute to bring
stolen property into this state unless the
offense of theft had been committed under
the laws of the country or territory from
which the property was taken. To simply
aver that the party is accused of theft
of Il horse in the Indian Territory and
afterwards bringing said horse into the
Sldlc lCAdS uOCS HUI lLlC oIIIlSC
denounced by our law. Bringing stolen
property into the state is not an ofense go
nomine, and therefore the recognizance
must state the essential clements OF the
offense. Because it does not appear that
the offense committed was horse theft
under the laws of the Indian Territory the
recognizance is fat@lly defective and suit
thereon cannot be maintained. Reversed
and dismissed. White, p. j.
Mccormick Harvesting Machine Com
pany vs. j. S. Slower; from Wise. Suit by
appellant on following instrument: "Will-
lam Chenoweth, Boonville, Tex, May
10, 1SS6:-Sir:-In regard 10 the
Woodal reaper I viii pay all on
it l agreed to pay, which is S12o will
not go back on q fair trade on account of
the weather. want you to come Monday
and set it up for me- Yours respectfully,
j. 81 Slower" !. The plea of appellee in
theoature of plea of non est factum. as
w{e as of the nature of a failure of consid-
er5 ion, should have been sworn to, the
I'd BIRD not showing the truth of the pleas.
So 2. Said plea not having been
M the justice court, it could not be
made for the first time in the county court.
r VIII. c. c., CPS. 4i2, 451. Reversed and
remanded. Davidson, j.
Blanks, Walker & Co. VS.. J. B. Hutchins;
from Guadalupe. l. A mortgage is a Sc
curity for a debt, the title remaining in the
mortgagor until Invested by foreclosure.
The sale of the mortgaged property passes
the title of the mortgagor in and to personal
property, and the mortgage lien becomes
merged in the title. The purchaser there
under can maintain his title to said property
as against subsequent attaching creditors.
He can sell under the terms OF the mort
gage, and when the terms of the sale have
"a. - Ill - =
world, and is as of the same effect as fore
closure by judicial proceedings. Appellee
as purchaser at the foreclosure sale had a
right to intervene in the attachment suit
as to the mortgaged property, and the judg-
ment was properly in his favor. Affirmed.
Per curiam.
Burt!Powell VS.. the State; from Harri-
son. Assault to murder. l. Charge suffi-
Gent and applicable to facts. Ruling of
court correct in excluding offered testi-
mony. 2. Charge of manslaughter was
unnecessary. Charge OF aggravated as
sault was good. No error. Affirmed. Per
curtain.
Elk parte ]. P. Hurst; from Tyler. Ha-
beas corpus. The application for habeas
corpus is based on the ground that there is
no evidence sufficient to hold relator l.
We think the evidence is sufficient to war;
rant the judgment of the court below in de-
tanning relator and to show the probability
the offense was committed. Affirmed. Per
curtain.
P. A. Crow ct al. VS.. Byers Bros. from
Grayson. Motion to affirm on certificate. l.
The motion is regular and meeting legal re-
quirements will be sustained. Granted.
Per curiam.
Sol Barron vs.. Sam Barron; from Fisher.
Certificate for affirmance. l. A certificate
for affirmance which has neither caption,
a seal or tie, is defective and will not be
considered. Motion overruled. Per Gu
RAM
H. j. Blackburn VS.. the State; from
Brown. Horse theft. On rehearing l.
Statement of facts cannot be considered.
There is no error. Overruled. Per curtain.
! H. c. Miles VS.. G. w. Butler; from Ell
'Paso. On rehearing. The judgment of re-
versal was CORE ct and no reason shown for
setting same aside. Overruled. Per Gu
Ram