The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-06-29
Ex-Parte Brown, from Bexar.

Ex-Parte Brown, from Bexar. APP
pellant was convicted for failure to-
pay certain fees imposed by city ordi-
nance for butcheripg. He was refus-
ed writ of habeas corpus and APP
peals. Under Laredo V. Loury, 20 s.
w. Rep. SO and Hoefling vs.. The City
OF San Antonio, 20 s. w. Rep, we
think the ordinance invalid. The
Judgment is reversed and the relator
ordered discharged. Opinion by Day.
idson, j.
Ex-Parte Campbell, from Rockwell.
Appellant was arrested for disobedi-
: ence of an ordinance of the town of
Rockwell, imposing fine on male
persons between the ages of Is and
As years, who should refuse
to work the streets or
supply substitute. The town
was Incorporated under title II chap
ter of the Revised Statutes. Art.
521 of which provides that "The board
of aldermen shall have and exercise
control over the streets and other
public places in the corporation. !"
This is the only law called to our at
tention authorizing the city council to
ordain the ordinance in question. We
do not think this sufficient. lex parte
Grace, 8 Ct. App. 281.) The Judgment
is reversed and the relator is ordered
discharged. Opinion by Davidson, J.
s. Wal5hack vs. The State, from
Milan; selling liquor to minor. This
ls not an otense so common and it is
necessary that the elements be set out
in the recognizance. This is not done
and the appeal is dismissed. Opinion
by Davidson, j.
Jack Harris vs.. The State, from
Harris; robbery. Defendant was
served with copy of indictment No.
7437, prosecution under which was
dismissed and another Indictment
found. He was not served with a
copy of the latter indictment. He
announced ready for trial, believing
that he was being tried under the.
first indictment. Objection was made
to proceeding under the second in
dictment, which was overruled. We
think this was error; the defendant
was entitled to service of the indict-
ment upon which he was being tried.
Lockwood VS.. The State, %, s. w.
Rep The evidence in regard to the
rape of Sendie McGrew was properly
admitted, as this was a part of the
same transaction. The Judgment is
is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinion by Davidson, j.
Bud Watson vs.. The State, from
| Orange; assault to murder. The re-
marks ofthe district attorneycomplain
ed of we reprimanded by the Judge,
and the jury told to disregard them,
There was no bill of exception re.
served. The Judgment is affirmed.
Opinion by Davidson, j.
Louis Evers vs.. The State. from
Bexar; murder. The defendant was
convicted upon plea of guilty. The
punishment for this offense is not alb.
solutely fixed by law, and in such
cases evidence is required to be sub
mitted to the jury to enable them to
decide thereupon 10 ct. App 433.) 1t
does not appear that the defendant
by the statutes. The judgment is re-
versed and the cause remanded.
Opinion by Davidson, J.
A. Fiemning VS.. The State, from
Milan, selling liquor on election day.
The recognizance fails to state that
the liquor was sold or given away in
the precinct named in the Indictment.
and is therefore fatally defective. The
appeal is dismissed. Opinion by
Davidson. J.
Marion Childs VS.. The State. from
Galveston; assault to murder. There
is no evidence OF self-defense. If the
at q tnja Uitnnosnc tNII ho
was guilty of assault to murder, If the
defendant told the truth he was doing
nothing except trying TO avoid being
shot by hiding. The evidence OF
former convictions was admissible.
even If objections had been made. The
Judgment is affirmed. Opinion by
Davidson, J. -
Henry Williams VS.. The State, from.
Houston; murder. The new evidence
discovered is not significant without
the evidence of Young, who is a con-
Wet aud can not testify. 1t was not
error to refuse to grant a new trial in
order that pardon might be procured
to restore Young to competence as a
witness. Such a rule would be re-
markable. The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion by Hurt, Pr.
Henry Wells VS.. The State, from
Van Zandt; manslaughter
Appellant began the difficulty by
an assault. Deceased drew pistol
and began firing at defendant who re.
treated, crying out as he ran, "ali
right; you see have nothing" De-
ceased fired at defendant after he got
in his shop when defendant returned
the fire. The court charged that he
must have abandoned the difficulty in
good faith. In the absence of bad
faith it should not be suggested. The
right of self-defense was reinstated.
Evidence of threats against defend
ants brother was inadmissable in abb
sence of proof of conspiracy. The
Judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded ODinion nv Hurt p T.