Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-06-25
CRIMINAL APPEALs.

Austin, TrX Jurc 23.-lspeeiall -'rhe
court of criminal appeals decided the fol
lowing eases June -:
II. r. FFctwnn VS. the State,
from Harris; theft There Is no
hill Of exceptions in the re-
cord. No error appears aud the judg-
mcnt is affirmed. Opinion by Davidson,
II. II. Frctwoll vs.. the State fran IIar-
ris; forgery The statement Of facts cun-
not he considered because not hirl IN
tire. The charge is correct and the
Judgment is affirmed. Opinion by David
B Il. Frciwoll VS.. the State, from Ilnr-
ris: uttering forged instrument. The
statement Of iucts is defective as in the
ease just above No hll Of exceptions
was reserved, The Judgment is affirmed,
Opmlou by Davidson, j.
VIII Douglass w, the State. from Tar
rant; burglary. There is M settlement of
one for theft, are al affirmed upon the
fDots non hill Of exceptions. The pro-
cvcdings appear regular nud the iulg-
mont is affirmed. Opinion by Davidson,
j. The tonr other eases AGAINST the
same appellant. three for burglary aul
one for theft are all affirmed upon the
Same grounds
lA.Pnrte Brown from Bcxar. An
prlmt was convicted for fixture 10
pay certain frcs imposed by city orli-
nance for luichcrng. lie WAS refused
" VIII OF hlhrus corpus and apprJLL
lndrr Laredo V, Lowry 20 = W. Rep.
80 aud lioeiling W. City of San Antonio.
- ). w. Rep, We think the ordinance
invalid The Judgment Is reversed aud
the relator ordered discharged. Opinion
10y Davidson. j.
l3S rartc Campbell, from Rockwell.
Appellant was arrested for disohpdi-
once Of an ordinance of the town Of
Rockwnll. Imposing ahne on mac per-
snuS between the ages of Is and 10
years. who should refseN 10 work the
streets or supply q substitute. The town
was Incorporated under title IL chapter
Of the revised statutes, article 81 Of
which plnvidcs that the board of alder
men shall have and exercise control over
TIE streets anl other puhHr pluccs In
the corporation, This Is the only law
| called 10 our attention. authorizing the
clty council To or7lnin the law IN question
We do not think This Suilioicnt lex
| l'arte Grace, u Ct App 3Sll The judy
nlrnt j. reversed and the relntOr Is or
| dcrvd discharged Opinion 10y Davidsons
! Justice.
$, Walshack vs., the State, from Mlah
selling liquor To minor This Is not an
| uNcisr 80 uominc, and II Is necessary
! thai the elements he set out in the re-
| cugni1auce. This is duue and the appeal
| Is dismissed. Opinion by Davidson, j.
Jack Harris vs.. State, from Harris:
robbery; defendant was served with copy
OF Indictment No. 1927, prosecution. under
| which was dismissed aud another ndict-
meat found. He was not served with n
copy of the latter Indictment He AM
| nouncei ready for trial, believing that
he was hcnE tried under the first indict-
ment Objection was made 10 proceeding
under the second Indictment, which was
oyerrucd. We think this was error
The defendant was entitled to service Of
fhe indictment upon which he was being
tried, Lockwood vs. the State. - s W.
Rep,) The evidence in regard TO the rape
of jennie Mctircw WIS properly admit
Ted, Asfthis was part OF the saAid trans
action. Tie JUDGMENT Is reversed n-t
the cause remanded. Opinion By David
son. Justice.
bud Watson vs.. the State. from
Oringe; assault TO murder. The remarks
OF the district attorney complained Of
were repgimaniel hy lAe Judge ana ihs
jury told 70 disregard ihcm Thers
was no bin OF exceptions reserved rhp
Judgment Is affirmed. Opinion BY David.
sol, Y.
louis Eyers vs.. the stats. from Bexari
murder, The defendant was convicted
upon plea Of guilty. The punishment,
Tor this otfense Is not absolutely fixed
w law, and IN such evidence
= ths ipTv to ennnie theu e