Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-11-15
CRIMINAL APPEALS.
Synopsis or Decisions Rendered by
the Court Now sitting at Tyler.


Nn. w r.. Curry vs.. the State, from
| Dallas. The appeal herein was heretofore
discussed because Of defective recognlz-
ance. This dliiculty being removed by the
| nllng OF proper fecoGnlzsnee In the court
below has been reinstatcd and Is now dis
| posed OF upon such OF the questions sue-
gcsted as we can consider. The motion IN
quest OF Judgment Is not we'll takcu. II Is
not necessary under charter Of Dallas, see
lion 20, that information shall be Med IN
Its city court THE ofreuse being one
against the city ordinances. It is not re-
qnlred that q conclude against the peace
and dignity OF the state" what purports
TO be statement Of facts adduced In the
trinl appears In the record was not hled
in the trial court, and therefore VIII not
be considered as presented by the record.
We Ind no reversible error In the judg-
inent aud Il n affirmed. opinion b. David
son, j.
sam Augustine Va. the state, from Cole
man. Appellant was convicted OF the or.
fense Of obstruciing a publc highway end
the Judgment affirmed by his court on %
tober Is 1898. Appellants motion Tor re-
heariog Is overrued without further vpln.
ion OF comment by fhe court Ihls case
was reported when first decided. 49,
charley Meets w. state. frem Wood
presents his appeal II Is cOntended by
appellant that The assignment OF perjury
IN this ease Is not sufficient Us a predicate
for requiring the defendant TO answer
The sale OF goods, wares. liquors of other
merchandise on sunday j. not a violation
Of law unless brought within inc statutory
inhibition. which must be by "a merchnnt
grocer or dealer Ia wares or merchlndise,
or trader in any business whatever exc
rnal code, article $50, The questions az
pnt 10 defendant by the grand jury, we
think, were too indefinite ana general 20
form the basis OF perjury, even " an
swcred. The contention that the testi'
mony does not support the conviction u
well tnkpn; the cprrobOraiion DOES uol
meet with ode statutory requirements
Tie necessary proof has not bect made
10 either curt Ia support the conviction.
Bectnsc the Indictment Is Insufficient the
judgment Is reversed aud tue prosecution
dismissed Opinlpn by Davidson. j.
Mack Brown vs.. tho STATE. from Mason.
Conylctiun for murder ~ tue Hccoud Dc
gree for the klliug of John Griffith. Ap.
leHnnt c5mpihlnH % me enalse OF dnc
CONT upon the subject Of Insulting IAN.
guagc 10 Mrs brown. The eighteenth
paragraph of uhc charge states the law cor
fcctly IN the following language: the
shown IN order no reduce q voluntary homl-
side To uanslaughier, provided mat dc.
fcudnnt believed they were true and acted
on them The charge should be tested a.
u whole and not by detached parts. Tho
Judgment Is affirmed. opinion by Hurt
sam Rurlltt vs.. tao state, from Fay.
cttc. This appeal Is prosecuted from tir
refusal uf bail 90 appellant, WHO was hclh
upon the charge ~ murder. Upon clun'
examination ~ the facts as shown by me
record We thiuE the court below was JUS
I Tired lu the refusal VI bail aud the judy
I mont r. affirmed. Opinion by Slmkins, J.
Perry Carson w.. the state, FROM knuf-
/ man. Appellant WAS convicted ut ns-nilt
/ with lntnut TO commit the crime OF rape
/ reserved aud ind no error presented ny
! tho Il. lalr only serious question ~ ihlH
| ease ls presented TO This court a. the sur.
! nulpnry OF the evidence To support the con,
] yirti0u. We do not think the facts show
| tInt The drfudnnt intended 10 commit HE
ggimc, q rape o. defined by our statute.
/ The Judgment Is reversed aud the cause
rrmandpd opinion by Davidson, j.
Luke Wallace vs.. the State from Harris
Convicted, tor an nsa99,nlt with intent TO
were jointly indicted for ibis oncnse 4
severance bring mai, Wallace was uiel
nrst NJ the same term ~ court Jordan
! was tried and acquitted. The prOsccutrlN
| wis Hs Ccrtuln NAT Jordan assaulted her
| rs she was that defendant shot her. she
| was absolutely positive that they mcting
! together both shot her ~ The same TINE
and place. appellant by quite number Of
dlsintcurstgd Witnesses proved an Nlhi,
| iry,N he would have been for acquittal.'
| Under the facts In this case II Is evident
that the court erred IN not granting nppel.
lants motion for new trial, The Judgment
Is reversed and the cause romnndcd. Opin
Ion by Hurt =. j
Perry Woods vs.. the State from Smith
Appellant was convicted OF the thrfi NJ q
hog aud his punishment fixed ~ So ana -
/ days Imprisonment In tho county jail. The
states witness mel appellant dragging 'ht
Killed, Appellant had hs gun with him.
/ Witness asked him where lie got thc hoy,
Appellant answered that he purchased y
frim lltnry Ferguson. The moment his
! possession wuH challenged he az once uc'
| counted for his possession, The vendor
lived near by ana Ills statement could hay,
Q hH nW
not appear from tho record TINT tho rN
plAuatinn was false. The Judgment IS re-
ycrscd mud tho cause rcmandcd, Opinion
Willie Coic Vs. state, from ncll. Appel.
liant wus convicted Ut Nssaultng u Guild
under twelve years Of axe with intrnj
10 ruylsh her and his punishmout asscsscd
81 two years confinement Ia tho pcuitVn
ilnry reversal " the Judgment l.
urged hcvlusc the verdict failed TO state
ithe 0nding uf the fury as To the age OF
defendant, aud because the evidence TX IN
euihelont 10 support the conyloiinn. W,
think the verdict sufficient that II Ia NO
necessary tho Jury should state the age ni
Defendant IN tha verdict. A general yer
diet L. usually sufficient and i so, rncs,
there Is some provision or requirement OF
law making 1t necessary to tiake special
finding. There Is q serious conflict In IN,
Cvidcncc The testimony for the stat,
fully suslalns the conviction. while thu
introduced by the defense would have Jus
tlncd an Hcpuittal. Under such state OF
ease We would not be autlorlScl TO disturb
affirmed. opinion 6y Davidson, j.
knmallo Snlteo VI, state from BeXar
Appellant was convicted OF murder la III,
nrst degree and his punlshmeut assessr,
"a life in the pcnlicntlary. IL the hll
Of executions reserved 10 remarks OF N,
district attorney could be considered at al
| 1t not hOiug died IN the court hollow
it certainly presents no error The i'm
puted misconduct OF the Jury was mn lssu,
VI fact IN the m0tlun for now trial ant
| clearly overcome by tho cOntrovcrting ties
timony of tho state There Is no force h
the objection to the personnel Of tho CRANE
jury OF Jury trying the cause IS TO iheii
| helng selected indscTlmnately from Ger
tain districts OF the county The charge 1,
not obnoxious to the criticism sought 10 ht
imposed on ", and correctly presents TIE
I law % the case. The Judgment IL affirmed
opinion by Davidson, J.
| Robert HaEan W., state, from Webb
Conviction OF theft NJ two horses The In
dictment alleged that the horses we've tn
property or Mrs, Trinidad Rios dc Loaf
whilo " appears ffOn the evidence tina
the horses belonged to her sou Clvln,
ieal. IL nlso appcAs that both had pos
session, control and management OF same
VI was CORRECT practice 20 alcge prnpcrt,
In Mrs, Lcal This pron0sitlon being dis
passed ~ aiiirmativrlv, dspOscs VI hills o
oxcepilons Nos, ! aud . The court charge,
the Jury fully on the rules governing IA
eases ~ circnmstaullal evidence. and wa
Required to repeat them hy giving nppel
lanta requested special Instruction. Aftc
close examination ~ the record we nnd n,
error for which the cause should be- re
Nc7Scd. The Judgment Is affirmed. Opln