Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-20
200; Is s. W. Rep. $780, Reversed and re.
manded. White, p. j.


erai toward appellant. There was no self
defense in the case, yet the court gave APP
pellant the benefit of the defense. and of
manslaughter. . There was no abandon
nent of the conflict on the part of appel
liant, but on the contrary, after the first diff
ficulty he armed and secreted himself
where deceased was to pass along, and as
he die so, appellant renewed the difficulty,
and shot and killed deceased as he walked
away, attempting also TO fire at the party
who was with deceased. 3. 1t was not err
ror to exclude the testimony that deceased
had formerly cut another party with q
knife. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Simon Ingram VS.. the State; from Gray
son. Rape, with ninety-nine years con-
fiuement. /. Two issues were presented
by the testimony, an abb and the identity
of defendant. Upon the first issue the evi-
Gence was directly conflicting. This being
true and the evidence supporting the YER
dict, we can not disturb the Judgment on
that ground. The evidence was also con-
fiicting on the other issue. The charge pre-
sented the law of the case No reversible
error. Affirmed. Per curiam.
Guadalupe Lerma VS.. the State; from
Brewster. Cattle theft. l. The charge on
circumstantial evidence was sufficient. If
a more elaborate charge on that question
was desired it should have been requested.
.. The courts charge on the question of
taking as embraced in the crime of theft
was sufficient g. The ownership of the
property was sufficiently proven to be in
Patterson, the foreman of the Hereford
cattle company. He had exclusive care,
control, etc, of the cattle, aud testified that
the brand and mark of the stolen cattle
were those of the company. There was no
objection to this manner of proving the
brand. Motion for new trial properly re-
fused. Evidence sufficient. Affirmed. Per
curiam.
Cesaria Liero VS.. the State; from Brew
Ster. Cattle theft. l. Companion case to
Lerna VS.. State, above. The questions in
the two cases are the same, save in this
case the speech of the district attorney was
objected to. The remarks of counsel for
the state were proper, being called forth by
remarks of counsel for appellant. The
argument of the district attorney was
doubtless called for by the facts in the case.
Affirmed. Per curiam.
Joe Kay vs.. the State: from Fannin.
Theft of property over $50. /. Application
for continuance properly overruled. Two
of the witnesses were present and We're not
placed on the stand, and the evidence of the
others was not probably true. .. II was
discretionary with the court to permit the
ment had closed to prove want of consent.
3. The theft of the goods was proven by
the confessions of the parties in the pres
ence of appellants, and they stated they had
been induced to steal by him. They also
pleaded guilty. The property was found at
appellants house and in his possession, and
part of the goods were in his manual posses
sion when arrested. 4. The question of rea-
sOnable explanation of recently stolen prop
erty was not in the case. Under the facts it
would have been error to have hinged ap-
pellant'S guilt on such an issue. Affirmed.
Per curiam.
5. Martinez VS.. the State: from Frio.
Murder in the second degree with fifty
years confinement in the penitentiary. l.
The court did not err in refusing to quaSh
the special venire. , The court gave a
full, clear and explicit charge on the law
Of circumstancial evidence. and hence is
not error 10 refuse instructions on that is
sue. 3. The evidence showed murder
that would have justified a much heavier
punishment. There was no error. At
tirmed. Per curtain.
Jim Widows vs.. State: from Hopkins
Assault to murder. |. On the plea of in
sanity the charge of the court was full and
specific. .. There was no evidence of ag-
gr;. waited assault. The evidence shows
well formed and planned determination to
commit murder. 3. On the defense Of in
toXication the court gave a much more IA
Vorable charge TO appellant than was re-
quired under the statute. f. The fact that
the deputy in charge of the jury was 4
nephew of the injured party is explained by
the court, and no injury is shown by appel
liant. >. While the evidence is circumstan-
tidl, it is quite sufficient to sustain the YER
dict. i. A verdict arrived at by the jury by
means of illegal methods, which verdict
was subsequently abandoned and verdict
reached III a legal manner, could not preju-
dice appellant. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Alfred Debro vs. the State; from Lamar
Forgery. l. The instrument was altered
from 4 pecuniary obligation for one dollar
to one calling for three dollars. The appel
liant testified in substance that it was not
changed when it came into his hands. He
testified that he could not write. but wit
nesses testify that he could write and that
they had seen him write. The facts are
but exclude the idea of in
locence and show beyond reasonable
doubt appellant committed forgery. The
forgery could not have occurred except at
he counivance and with consent and parti-
ceps criminis of defendant with the party
the instrument. Affirmed. Per
,uriam.
Hill Eley vs.. the State; from Jones. Bur
IldfN. i. CIldfSS OIL inc court Iull anu
AIR and favorable TO appellant. 2. Evidence
conviction. Appellant was found
n possession OF a gun, comb and scissors
stolen from the burglarized premises. He
rave an explanation of his possession of the
run, but not as to other articles. Affirmed.
Per curiam.
Frank Chester VS.. the State; from Hop
<ins Theft of cattle. l. Special charges
lsked and refused, in so far as they are the
aw, were given by the court in the general
,harge The charge as given presented
he law applicable TO the facts adduced.
40 reversible errer. Affirmed. Per cur
am.
ChriStoval Marques vs.. the State; from
Il Paso. On motion TO dismiss appeal. l.
Appellant was charged with aggravated as
'ault and convicted of simple assault. The
recltes that he was convicted
If aggravated assault. Held: The appeal
must be dismissed. So ordered. Per cur
am.
C. d. l.. Newsom VS.. the State; from
tones. Aggravated assault. !. The infor-
nation is a valid one and the facts are Suf-
cent to sustain the conviction. No re-
1ersible error. Affirmed. Per curiam.
Commission of Appeals.
SECTION A
Hon. Edwin Hobby, =. j.; W. +. Collard
and D. p. Mari. Associate Judges; c. S.
Morse. Clerk.
Virginia c. James eli NJ. VS.. Margaret c.
lanes ct al. from Grayson. Suit by ap-
1ellees to recover certain property alleged