Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-11-09
CRIMINAL APPEALS.
Decisions at the Tyler Sitting for the
First Week in November.
CRIMINAL ArrFALs npctsroNs

CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISIONS
Special to the Gazette.
Tyler, Tex. Nov. S.-The following ds-
cisions were rendered by the cour, ~
criminal appeals at Tyler today;
Atlirmed-'Icrdan vs. the State. from
Tyler; Fitzgerald vs.. the State FINN
Smith; Corporal vs.. the State. from
Colorado Leyano VS.. the state f,,,o
Bel; Stonton vs.. the State from
shelby; West vs.. the State from TYLER.
Hamilton VS.. the State. from Beii
Reversed and dismissed-rolivar O.
the State. from Rnsk
reversed and remanded-Afash vs. the
the State, from Hopkins,
u Notion Tor rehearing oycrruled---
Baker vs.. the State, from Goliad.
., Appeals dismissed-Wilson VS.. the
Stnte, from Tyler.
Effective recognigance-M Morgan Us.
the state. from Tyler. Same cause.
ia Nichols vs., rae State, from Travis
county; rape; deGIh penalty. Motion
Tor rebearing based upon two grounds
overruled. |. That the court erred in
allowing Sheriff White 10 testify "a IN
confessions by ;he defendant. While
II Is true ms stated In motion that an
rcllant said that he had been told bv
Sheriff White 1t was best for him 10
tell about the matter, yet he SAYS he told
sheriff White he was not guilty and
made the confession. This statement
wis made to the court after The Jury
was withdrawn al which time Sheriff
White denied defendants statement to
the court and asserted that the CON
fcsaion was made freely. voluntarily and
aftcr being cautioned.
When the Jury were brought back,
witness White again repeated the state
ment and detailed the confession before
the jury. The appellant did not deny or
question this testimony in any way be.
fore the jury then. Had this been done
the court should have charged the jury
10 disregard the confession, il they be.
lieved 1t was not voluntary aud there
was no error in submitting 1t to the
jury.
.. Appellant insists that the case shall
he reversed because the title of the act
of April 3, 1891. is fatally defective in
falling to state the subject OF the act. to-
wit: Rape. Even that, thnt merely stating
the article, chapter and title of the penal
code. intended TO be amended Is not
sufficient under article section ~, of
the constitution Held. If ever there
was any force In the objection as applied
TO the criminal code Of Texas. 1t Is now
no longer an open question. Ever since
the enactment of the nonal code anl
code of criminal procedure the lcgisln
turc with this or similar constitutional
provisions before it has amended these
codes by acts. the titles If which only
gave the article, chapter, title and nlsnr
of the code sought to be amended. The
penIl code beng n single act designed 60
embrace every 0iicuso against the laws
of Texas complete within itself ar
ranged and classified into chapters titles
and articles. every legislature since it,
adoption has deemed it to be 4 sufficient
compliance with the constitutional pro-
vision tO-wit; Section 30 article 3. Of
the title of the proposed act referred 10
the code In the manner above stated,
that thereby It sufficiently specified the
subject sought to be amended by the
act
II therefore uniform construction sup
ported by judicial decision and recogni-
tion can settle anything ne must hold
the title Of the act in question to be suf-
hcient. The object of the constitution
requiring that an act should express
the subject IN its title was to prevent
vicious legislation by lug-rOlling and put
the legislature and public on notice rs
TO the contents of each bill Still the
constitution has received q most liberal
construction. aud Il has been held that
ii the title fairly gives notice and leads
10 inquiry Il is sufficient. aud the pro-
visions of Il statute are 10 be sustained
as long az they are of the same nature
ard come lcgiti7ntely under the general
subject expressed in the title. Alauy
authorities citcdl
But these considerations Apply almost
entirely IA civil matters and have very
little application TO criminal law, which
must always be general in its nature,
affecting all alike, and can not be- ex
part facto nor the vehicle Of private in
tcrest, and while the constitutional pro
vision controls both civil and criminal
- 10. 4 IL. -.
criminal law is codiiied into system
complete In itself, with definite name
fixed IN the law itself. relating TO one
subject, there could not reasonably be
a more distinct expression Of the sub
ject in the title Of the act than n state
ment Of the article, chapter, title and
name of the code to he amended. This
very objection mas already been con-
sidered and decided in ssel-Meyers
case. first court of appeals. and Me
Cracker case, 2l2 Texas 49,. Motion
for rehearing oyerrnlcd. Opinion by
Simkins, j.
Lee Briscoe W.. the State, from Fort
Bend county Conviction for carrying a
pistol IN CONFIRMATION of the statute.
The testimony of the officer making the
arrest was admissible TO- but the stnte-
ment of the defendant to the effect he
was returning the pistol was not. The
evidence warranted the conviction. The
Judgment is affirmed. Opinion by David
son. j.
Marion Myatt VS., the State. from
Brazos county. Conviction for carrying
n pistol on his person
appellant WAS not q traveller within the
meaning Of the statute, and was not jus
titled under the facts rs shown by the
record in carrying the pistol and If he
took charge Of the pistol temporarily to
prevent the deputy sheriff from using It
he should have deposited IT, The iudg-
p. J.
Jack Schwarz vs.. the State. from
Brazos county. Appellant was convicted
of pursuing the occupation Of
retail liqour dealer without post
ing up his license in his place
Of business and was convicted
and his fine assessed at 5000. from
which he appeals, Appellant insists that
IL guilty of any offense It is that Of pur-
suing an occupation without first obtain
ing a license, as defined by p. G., act no.
aud not having purchased license had
committed no 0flcnse In failing TO post,
etc. There Is nothing In the contention
Tie act of April 4, 1887. which deter
mines this offense. applies especially to
tie retail liquor dealer. The act is plain
Its terms are unequivocal. We find no
error. The Judgment is affirmed. Opin-
NV Sffnulffnu I