Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-11-02
COURT OF APPEALS.
-c,s,oNS RENDERED AT THE
TYLER SITTING.
.-,.,.,ings-Hon. John P. White, Pre-
'H ,.,,rr Judse-J. NJ. Hurt and w. L.
DavIdsor, Associate Judges.


IeAWtocI Suit by appellee to recover
rom for injury to his feelings. /. The
DANA ,5fsrloses that appellee purchased a
Tet0.'a NineolA emitting him to be car
titAe' :" AXE Fork, flag station and switch
re- ".Igut's railway. There We're four
% attF aiiv or appellants railway, and it
tE.i,.r I'm that for some time prior to the
ls sI.tssa b: appellee Of his ticket 1t had
pll.-,-Tblished at Lake Fork and generally
oe.a the road that through trains 1.-TWO
aggnz ,,or,ld not stop at Lake Fork. Appel
9l', cas- notified Of this fact by the agent
re - him the ticket, and was also noti-
wA' 49, ~. the conductor before the train
lel rr1rl Niineola that the train would
81. -, q. Lake Fork Appellant insisted
a'' ~, however, and was carried past
d =,rE 70 the next station, where he
la'Iui..5 Il was in evidence that the con-
Cry,..,r to,I appellee that he was only trying
CO. o. ,ase against the road, but that he
10 t1,,-enrlv apOlogiZed for this language.
s.--.,.Ii.a boarded the next train, which was
AF through train, and the conductor re-
80 3-,f5 stop. was again carried past Lake
US ~, ~ Nliucola. Appellee then took a
- which stopped at Lake Fork. II IS
T. =, that two trains daily stopped at
5,.,., ior, Held: The evidence does not
l'l,,or. the verdict and Judgment. The
s-r' established that through trains would
s,on nj Lake Fork was reasonable, it
- shawn that two trains daily stopped
-. Fork Where a party insists on
o...,''i,er on the trains after the schedule
-, been published to point where
, '- informed the train will not stop, he
L.-ro- recover for being carried beyond
r.iuf. reversed and remanded. Da-
VI n Lindlcy vs. Texas and Pacific rail
w. from Wood. Suit by appellant to re-
,,..ar for failure to transport him on appYE
,,r,'s train. !. Appellant purchased ticket
trTs,e Fork and attempted to take APPEL
t,,.. rain. which was through trainiand
.,..rfjpg to advertised schedule did AQOt
'.,, N Lake Fork. The conductor refused
,..rr1y appellant to board the train. There
-. verdict for defendant. Held: The
,rirmeul is correct. Appellant has no
r.-uf action against appellee. Affirmed.
DAVIDSON, d.
n suit rs. the State; from Armstrong.
1rr-Irr in FIRST degree, with life penalty.
I The statement OF facts was mailed to the
district attorney on June j. On account of
,,-5ar.ts. nigh water, etc. ii did not reach
n, district attorney until June 10. On
Line ~ TT was made known to the judge
that parties had failed to agree on a state
rr.rf Of facts. and ne then certified the
10 moi thiul. sufficient diligence is shown by
;nu.. Ian, 10 obtain his statement of facts,
AMI can not therefore COZ slider same. 2.
vrgf the special vcnire was directed to the
sheriff or any constable, is not sufficient
Ground 10 guaSh same, ii being shown that
,tr sheriff executed same, and no injury
p.uE shown. 3. The mere fact that a Juror
las established in his mind Il conclusion of
III, ri.: or innocence of the party on trial,
i-n5. a sufficient cause for disqualification.
That conclusion, If entertained, must go
farther and be of such u character as will
influence him in finding a verdict. !. APP
Irart asked 1 witness, the wife of de-
ceased. if she did not say when the party
wl, came up and hallooed and shot her
husband, that it YVES appellant, to which
saa answered that she said at the time that
g.E. the voice she said she did not think it
aas appellant Held: That under these
circumstances il was proper for the state TO
prove 5y her that her two daughters at the
Tine said il WIS appellant, and this, al
though one of the daughters was the wife
NJ appellant. The bill of exceptions to the
.HtrGlt,luu q this testimony is not suffi-
Gently lu.l to entitle same to consideration,
3g3 shows ~ error in the absence of
statement Of Facts. D. The charge is not
subject 20 the criticism INDUCED. AT
frmsi. Davidson, j.
Henry Hurley Us. the State: from Bexar
Conviction for stealing dog of the value of
= ,Ae penalty b ing assessed at contine-
McU' u the penitentiary for two years.
T. Within the meaning of personal property
IS defined by penal code, article i25, which
may bo ,he subject of theft, are included all
nurs-'cIlod animal and birds when they
e.. proved 10 have any specific value p. c.,
-.r -" twill be noted that our statute
art. 20. embraces every species of per-
s0ga. property capable OF being taken, and
@r.ulgs all domesticated animals Arts.
- and 33 and in addition to this article
t'sof HE Penal Code, Furnishing malicious
mischief makes it an offense to ''wilfully
a4. alaI'E, wound. poison or disfgure any
horse, ass. cattle, sheep, goat, swine, dog
Or o'her domcsticated ANIMAL" etc. p The
U@Mon law holding that dog is not such
property is can be stolen was extremely
''rE...s., and can not be said to have
sound o.siS 10 rest on. While it was not
hNtuy TO steal dog it was
A-rtay 60 steal the skin of dead dog and
Ns-ral many animals of less account than
Dogs TIE artificial reasoning upon which
ase rules We're based, are wholly in
applicable 10 modern society. Temporal
Eg'aHtlr e. lcgeS mUtantur in Ills. Large
l.- they arc largely the subjects of trade
and traffic in many ways they are put to
l''--- service, and so far as pertains to
4r.i ownership as personal property, they
POSSESS 81 The other attributes of other per-
SOMA. property So n. Y. 365. 3. In various
D.arE states of the Union the larceny of
4 las been held punishable upon the
tH.- ttat he is domestic" animal,
la, BE- is personal property" and thing
=" value We think that under our statute
IKE can be no question but that
.-a dog would come within the
.fSS INVESTIGATED animal" and as such
Do. At 'He subject of theft. +. \ bill of
'N"t Sons 10 the rejection of testimony
"-tr does not show what the answer
would 1lye been AMI its materiality, is too
{ aera. 10 be- considered. There is no error.
A1LMea. White, p. ].
n, A& par,e NJ NJ Mosely; from johnson.
ans IS an original application by relator
7. .H- lis court 10 grant him the writ OF
-'0e-s corpus and relieve him from the
ion l4ry. l. BY an act of February u,
~, AT. STD. {. G. p, is amended and
,'sll4..,iTe punishments provided for are
=, .'ti.ra TO convictions and sentences at
>t2ar term of court, and il is clear that
ere .g- s.l,,yc intent was to change the law
- .-a, respect SO that cumulative punish
..'.S should not thereafter be limited
&c judgments rendered at the same
sE4 ~ court .. That the cumulative
: -..>Fe" nj IF the second conviction is not
.o.o-1 ad by the Judgment of conviction,
w, is ol.y contained in the final Judgment
a-- sentence. cannot avail relator. The
assessment of cumulative punishment may
:, . We ue provided for in the final judg-
,-y.. ant sentence as in the original judg- |
N-'-' Of conviction. Affirmed. White, p. ].
= d, Il, Humphreys vs.. the State; from
us NaUslaughter. l. No statement of |
- IN the record. In such state of case |
~ - court Will only consider the sufficiency
IN. we Indictment, the applicability of the |
y, ,..'' charge hereunder, with respect to |