Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-11-12
CRIMINAL APPEALS.
synopsis Of Decisions Rendered by
the Court, sitting at Tyler.

Bully West VS.. State from Tyler This
conviction is OF murder In the second de-
s zoe. Appellant having failed 70 reserve
bill Of exceptions 70 the ruling OF tho court
IN refusing continuance, cannot DO heurd
TO complain In tins court for the iirst time.
The trial court was made the Judge Of the
qualifications OF the Juror Gibson, and
without error shown this court VIII not re-
wise his action. Soc Wills Grim. Proc,
Sec, 9o53. The statement u facts, moi be-
ing filed In time, cannot be considered. The
Judgment is affirmed. Opinion BY DAVID
son, j.
Albert Hamilton vs.. State; from Bell
The appellant was convicted OF burglary
ana his punishment assessed nv Two years
In the st1te penitentlary The court did
err In refusing TO quash the indictment
The court committed no error "a admitting
the evidence Of Cornelius Hilliard. The
Charge OF the court was favorable 70 tho
appellant, and he did not err In refusing to
give requested charge IL was not law. The
Judgment is affirmed, Opinion by Sim
kns, j.
Charles II. Baker vs.. state from Goliad.
This cause was affirmed ~ the Austin term
on June % Of this year. The sole question
then considered was the right OF the dis
trict court TO forfeit d bond duly trnns-
ferred 70 II from tho county court. 1he
county Judge having been OF counsel en-
tered his disqualification ana lhe cause
court, which for said reason took original
Jurisdiction, and hence the transfer was
not affected By the constitutional amend
nent. II the district court mad lurisdic-
ton II had II for all purposes. Motion for
rehearing oyerruled' opinion by sim
kins. j.
Horace Corporal Us, State; from Colo
RADIO. Conviction for an assault with In
tent TO murder Dan Daneey. Upon the
trial the district attorney propounded 70 q
Witness leading question az 10 material
fact. which was answered by the witness
before the court could rule on tho objection
thereto made BY consel Tor appellant.
Whereupou the court "instructed the dis
triet attorney that II was a leading ques-
tion. had him TO PROFOUND the question
properly. and the witness mhue Tue same
| .tuswer.n While this Is improper practice,
under the facts Of the case the judgment
should not be reversed because Of same.
| Statements made BY the appellant volun-
tnrily while under arrest though not eau.
toned were inndmiHsi0e Tor lhe purpose OF
impeachinB the appellant me chalHe o.
tie court was upon selfdefense, though
not OBJECTED to. favorable 70 and 10 interest
Of appellant The instructions requested
| by appellant and refused contained no rule
| OF law applicable 70 this case which was not
embraced 10 the general charge. Al
| hrmed. Hurt, =. j.
| Carmel Lulano rs, State; from Beh. Ap-
nellant was convicted OF rape upon child
under the age OF ie years. Tho special
| charge requested BY appellant 70 the effect
s.that while 0 conviction Of rape can be had
| on the uncorrohorated testimony " the
| prosecutrix. yet, when such testimony can
| &c procured, It's non-prodrotlon should tell
| seriously against the statep was properly
! refused. aud hence no error The evidence
| Of corrobOration IS strong cogent and upon
every material issue. Tue charge a. given
was certainly favorable 70 the accused. The
evidence Is auficient The judgment Is
affirmed. Opinion by Davidson, J.
Fayctte Jordan vs. STATE from Tyler.
1 CONVICTION fcr burglary. The first question
/ presented Is the inxufnciency OF the evil