Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-02
HIGHER COURTS.
DECISIONS RENDERED BY The
COURT OF APPEALS
Now In Session at GaIveston-A Number
Of Cases of Interest Determined.
Synopsis of the Findings
Special to the Gazette.

Special to the Gazette.
GALVESTON, TEX, Feb. 1.-Tobe Cook
alias Henderson Cook, vs.. the State; from
BastroD county. Conviction of murder in
the first degree and death penalty assessed.
Defendant, who was negro man, was
charged with the murder of Ida Bell
Moore, q young white girl about sixteen
years of age. Evidence shows that de-
ceased had been chOked to death and also
that it was committed in the preparation
Or attempt at the preparation of rape. 1t
was assigned as error that Witness Nc
CaskiI was allowed to testify because the
rule had been invoked and he was present
and heard other states witnesses testify.
Held: The admissibility OF witnesses TO
testify who have violated the rule Is within
the sound discretion Of the court and Will
be presumed to be correctly exercised until
the contrary appears. - Texas, 49S. 1t
Is not shown that the trial judge abused
hs discretion. Exception was taken to re-
marks Of district attorney, who was COM
meuung on testimony which had been IN
uoduced to impeach defendants witness,
Monte Fox. Held: The remarks are not
thought to be improper, especially in view
of the fact that he qualified them by limit
ing them to testimony as impeaching testi-
m0uy. Wilson's Criminal Statutes, 1921.
Record shows most fair aud impartial
trial While evidence is circumstantial
mature consideration Of the court Is forced
frmed. Opinion by White, 2. j.
Alexander Meuly Us. the State; from
Travis county. Conviction Tor murder IN
tle second degree. Defendant had been
previously convicted of murder IL the Sec
Oud degree, which Judgment was reversed.
II Is complained that the court erred in de-
lining murder in the first degree, and eX-
press malice when this issue was not IN
The case. II this was error, which is not
conceded, it was cured by the courts tell
ing the jury that the defendant had been
acquitted of murder in the first degree.
Defendant testified in his own behalf His
counsel offered special instruction that
the Jury were the exclusive judges OF
defendants testimony, and the court gave
The instruction qualifying it, stating, that
his interest in the issues involved Is TO be
considered" Held: Not error; this was
not subject TO the exception that the court
singled out and instructed upon the evil
deuce Of particular witness. Affirmed.
Opinion by White, p. ).
George Nicely VS.. the State; from Wilson.
Conviction for theft of u horse. No errors
In the record. Affirmed without written
Robert Hanna VS.. the State; from Erath
county. Conviction for theft of cattle. No
exceptions to testimony or charge. The
charge is full and complete, and presents
the law OF the case. The facts are ample to
support the conviction. Affirmed without
written opinion.
George Wilkins vs.. the State; from Dali
las county Conviction for practicing dem
fistrv without license therefor. Upon
proper construction Of the statute, article
1865. as amended by the act OF the Twenty
first legislature, page p, dentists are re-
CURED to pay license tax OF 50, and OBTAIN
q license before pursuing their occupation.
as such dentists. Affirmed without written
opinion.
Sidney Smith VS., the State; from Brazos
county Conviction for murder IN the sec
Ond degree and given five years in the penl-
Tertiary. Exceptions TO admlSlOllty Oh
evidence are not well taken. The charge
Is full and fair to defendant The evidence
OF the state and that of the defendant
clearly establishes the killing TO be murder.
No Sidence that shows otherwise. The
conviction is correct and the verdict light.
Affirmed without written opinion.
Jack Evans VS.. the State: from Milan
county Conviction Of burglary. We do
not think the facts required q, charge upon
explanation Of possession Of recently stolen
property. The defendant stated in refer
ence to casual inquiry as to where he got
so much stuff "a $40 gold piece) that he
had chopped cotton for 1t, and had some
more, which he displayed The defendant,
BIT the time, had asked witness to give him
change for the money, and the witness
Rsked him the above question. This Is not
such = challenge Of defendants right TO the
property as 10 indicate the accusation of
illegal possession. They were entire stran-
gers. Defendant at the time was in wit
ness saloon. 1t is not every idle or casual
conversation as to possession that requires
q charge upon this question. Affirmed
without written opinion.
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railways
Ccm2 any VS.. A. ]. Harris; from Burleson