Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-25


hgncd 10 lnnict the Injury a provided
iu Art OIL Of Che penal code There iH
no merit Ia the further assignments There
bclug mo reversible error The Judgment d.
affirmed Opinion by special Judge "a B
Marsh. concufrcl iu hN special Judge D..
- Brooks. chief Justice Hurt dissonts aud
VIII Me his written opinion at some future
day or the term.
y champ W. State from Alyarado
conviction FOR murder loo second degree.
The testimony uf the witness On very con.
nlctlug "a witness may TESTIFY ns to the
size and location M "a wound but muY NOT
give his opinion ns to che pU1ltlnn M tho
parties Thp court instructed inc Iur, thnt
N they found tho defendant Wllty hiH punt.
shmcnt should he confinement in tho pcni-
irutHry Tor amy term not lrHs than lyc'
The word ave was spelled hvrH uud the word
years lett out IhiH was not excepted go ht
the time nor docs any injury appear tu have
resulted from NJ. no was riVcn The lowest
term Affirmed. Hurt y. y.
jas. Beumct w. State from Gonzales
Conviction FOR Incest Tho AdmiHlhlllty
~ evidence 60 show more than ono art tu
prove The crime is not an open question in
W. Douglas w. State from Gonzales
Appeal dismissed because the reoogui.
Eance fails 10 bind the defendant to- abide
| thc judgment Of any court Slmpkins.
| A. A. Han W. State from Robertson.
Conviction for rape Reference Of tho
| district attorney 90 defendants failure 90
| Mercer's case II ~ Apr. O57 Il Is not
necessary TO corrOhOrate tho Injured wo-
mans testimony to support "a cOnriotiou.
| Affirmed. snpLlns j.
/ Teresa Zldcl W. state from Fayctte
| Conviction Tor simple assault aud hncd -
and costs ln Justices court. Dismissed Too
county court becnusc the bond was not
| double the fuc aud costs, which came tO
| 500 90 rho bond was f0r 500 aud WIS
/ approved by tho Justice who had not 40 the
| tluc taxed mp The costs. 10 viii be- pre-
stunned correct at the time of approval go
| o. Amp 81 Reversed and remnndcd. Smp
klns, j.
Moses Dale w. State from williamson.
Conviction Tor theft ~ yDmlnR n a.
settled that One who p0luts ont yculiug
on the range und sells % ns his own ~ az
guilty a. m ho had first taken possession NJ
! II and then sold a. go 90 APP. iOll Affirm.
| cd. SimpkinH, j.
Andrew Love W.. state from Robertson
Conviction FOR carrying "a pistol Defense
| ~ that be- WAS "a deputy postmaster. thr
privilege granted Furh officers N limited by
| the words engaged IN the discharge 81
official duty u does not appear thai hn
! was SO engaged. Affirmed. Simpkins, j,
--~-
clint Winston W.. State from Hays
Conviction Tor violation OF luNW option
| laws. 10 was shown that the order fur the
election WIS made by proper uuih"niy on
Nov D nnd that me election was 10 be-
held aud was held on Nuv. -. ON Dec.
g. uu order was entered ON the minutes or
tho commissioners court rectlng that the
election WA ordered tho iuth uf November
and that the election was held go ihc 'Ilh
~ November. ont hc proclamation ui the
result the lOlh of November WAS rcuicd Hr
the time the election was ordered. Inc ru
try Of the county Judge of thp fact of publ.
cation recitcd that the order was made
on Nov. %. Defendant claims that 10 the
order was made on the OH that There was ID
fatal mrlnnce and that N ON DE 10Th ihat
entry coinoding with the entry NJ the Judge
states that the order was made on the
ath Of November. The other enfrys were Not
only mistakes ~ the clerk bat were surplus
age M Art IEil n 3. doses not Require no
order declaring The result iO state the date
AFTER order Of the election. Hut c0uceding
| thnf the order WAS rulrfrl on hOF no It
would not change the result Tue statute
docs not say" fifteen days exclusion N tho
date of order aud day of holding The elrC-
tiOn.n According 10 the general rude for
computing lime we would iuculr Che former
and exclude the latter bat This nueral rule
from which the reckoning begins nH well
h. that on which 70 ends t0 b. Included pr
excluded ln order 10 preserve a night on
exclude D forfeiture. n Tex, l1bi 80 Ind,
aON IND either case the election WIS valid,
There a. DO fnrcc iu the contention ihat the
constitutional amendment adopted Scr, ~,
1871 affected in any way thN local option
laws then in force. Tho judgment % AZ
hrmed. simpkns' j.