Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-29

No bills of exceptions TO charge or rulings
of the court The evidence was sufficient
and it excludes the idea that he was seeking
to pay himself fer wages out OF the money
Of his employer. The defendant never ac-
counted to his employer for the money en-
bezzled until after his arrest, nor did he at
tempt TO so account for it In answer to
this claim on his part it is most significant
fact disclosed by the evidence that instead
of converting his employers money
he appropriated money belonging 70 another
party. Affirmed without written opinion.
Wells, Stsyton & Kleberg and ]. c. Scott
for appellant.
Alex Duncan VS.. the State, from Fort
Bend county; conviction for murder in the
second degree and given twenty-five years
in the penitentiary. No error in the
charge. Continuance was properly over
ruled The newly discovered testimony, if
true or newly discovered, was only cumula-
tive. Evidence sufficient. Affirmed with
out written opinion.
George Avery Us. the State; from De-
Witt county. Conviction for burglary.
Court did not err in over ruling defendants
objections to the question as to consent.
While it was not necessary for the state TO
prove such testimony, yet it was not re-
Yersible error TO admit it. The house en-
tered was in possession of A. and property
stolen in possession Of NJ, and it was SO
alleged, and the state proved want of con-
sent of both parties to both the burglary
and the theft. This was not reversible:
il error the state must prove the allegations
and this would be sufficient, but that It
went further and proved want of consent
on part of both VIII not reverse Affirmed
without written opinion.
G. S. Saunders vs.. the State; from Bias
trop county. Conviction for rape. Bill of
rod tn 1f.sff
defendant as TO statements made by him
while in Jail and denied by him, was proper
and shows no error. 1t was proper 10 so
contradict him. Second bill Of exceptions
shows the testimony was admitted as
urged by defendant and no error was
shown. We do not understand why this
bill was reserved, inasmuch as the testi-
rnony sought by defendant was finally adj
mitted. Defendant first objected to the
admission and his objection was sustained
He afterwards sought TO have it admitted,
and over states objection it was admitted.
Such we understand to be the bill The
charge is correct. The charge on penetration
IS copy of the statute and is correct. The
facts were passed upon by the jury. At
hrmed without written opinion.
Earnest Rafferty, ct al VS.. the State;
from Brown county. Scire facias case
The bail bond is sufficient and sets out an
an offence. Theft under the amount of $50
is amply sufficient as designation of the
offense in a bail bond where the offense is
q misdemeanOr. Affirmed without written
opinion. T. G. Wilkinson for appellant.
w. R. Davidson VS.. the State; from
Biazoria county. Conviction for murder
and life term given. Defendant should
have asked for a continuance when his
mother failed to attend court. That he was
surprised at her non-attendance is no
ground for 4 new trial. Her testimony is |
not newly discovered. If true, it was
known TO defendant. The court is of opin- |
lou that the verdict is sustained by the evi |
dence. Defendant was seen in company /
with deceased to wiChiu $50 or 800 yards of |
the place of the homicide. and armed. De- |
PENDANT knew he had the money, and was |
found with the same character of
money the succeeding Gay. His clothes had
blood on them on his boots was found the
same character of soil as found at and
about the body. His account of the mud
was shown to pe false. On the following
day when told of deceased casually, as an ac-
eompiished TACT, defendant denied any
of it and without being accused
thereof. denied being with deceased the
day of the homicide, and regretted not hav-
ing been with him, as he might have pre-
vented the homicide. Affirmed without
written opinion.
Winston Bankston VS.. the State; from
Wharton county. Conviction for murder
and given life term. The charge is correct.
The declarations were clearly admissible
The facts were passed on by the jury, and
found adversely TO defendant The evil
ience Is positive that the killing was per-
Detrated by defendant. Defendant proved
facts tending to show that he was at a
lifferent place at the time. Affirmed with
nut written opinion.
Will McGill VS.. the State; from Hamilton
county. Assault with intent to rape. The
continuance was properly overruled. The
set out is not probably true. The
of the defense renders the alb u
ent testimony untrue. The charge andf
violence sufficient Affirmed withouY
written opinion.
Dock Brotherton VS.. the State; from
Wichita county Application for writ gof
abeas corpus. The writ will not be granted |
o show that the applicant is restrained |
f his liberty by a sheriff when said apbi-
ant is held by virtue of commitment after
onviction for felony upon the ground thht
he grand jury is an illegal one. The dir
riot court has authority to reconvenA
he grand jury, and it is immaA
erial that some other member than n:
he foreman appointed in the first instance
igned the bill of indictment. 1t is i'm
Material that name is signed to the ipdict-
lent at all. the act of the Legislatures in
s emergency clause is in compliances with !
he constitutional sreqqi refaent on that sub
go oLs,l.TH - !
ri, = ,ss.o,sg,.ob,s - ,,,,i,o.