The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1894-03-20
THE HIGHER COURTS
rHH syNorsEs or DECISIONS As
HANDED DOWN.
RcndcrirEs of the state courts OF
last Resort in Causes Taken up
on Appeal From the Lower
judicial tribunals.


court OF Criminal Arpeals--J. W. Hurt.
fldres II i Tent.v assistsnt attornei
general. Sitiing az pailasJ
I Dallas. Texas, March iS-rhe court 81
criminal apneais handed down the follows
ing decisions yesterday:
] Israel Horen. from Collin, conviction
Tor murder In second degree There was
\ no error Ia overrullng the motion 70 uuasn
Indictment lsreal1 and Israel are Of
the same sound, and bad spelling win NOT
vitae an nuictmen, Nor was there any
the date OF manga trom lSsS 10 ISL, so
/ as 70 correspond with the minutes OF the
court showing thar the indictment was
uuif rsturnea by inc grand jury u inat
time Inc cnarge Of the court with refs
efence rs murder OF the second degree is
objected 10, necause there was NJ evil
| appellant also object 70 this expression
] upon the charge OF excrass nance. "But
from every unlawful kiiiins the law I'M
! pies naitce.' We agree with COUNSEL that
the ncmocide was murder OF the iirst de-
| gree or no oncnse whatefer. II appellant
was not insare, this was q cold Diooded
murtier II he was, the homicide was eX-
! cusahe. The Issue WAS. sanity or insanity.
On such q state OF case a charge upon
| murder Of the second degree WAS clearly
bcnencai TO appellant and SO Was the
statement, that malice IS implied from
an unlawful killiHg We are aware that
7 opinions Of this court hold that II the
charge IS wfong and u excepted 10 az
the time. a reversal must follow. whether
1 there be injury or not Now We desire TO
state that u II alflrriaiively appears thet
the chNrge WAS beneficial TO the accused,
the Judgment should not hc reversed,
though u may be wrong, on the other
hand, II there be doubt as to any injury,
or u II was calculated TO mlslead the jury,
it Should. We have carefully read the
charge Of the COURT on the subject Of IN
sanity y the light q , the opiection made
urged are not5well taken when tested by
the opinions o. this court There WAS no
error IN rejecting the special insfrue
court instructed the jury fully on the
subject Of insanity. THE evidence is cun-
iictng with regard % the only issue. viz.
insanity. Thc burden was on defendant
TO provo Insanity by preponherance Of
the evidence. His triers say that he failed
TO do this. and We can not say they We're
wrong. Affirmed, Hurt. +. i.
Albert Nowlen, from Grayson; convic-
ton for burglary. The court charged the
Jury: III you believe the defendant in-
nocert. you will acquit him. This charge
was objected to, because misleading, pre-
Judicial and not law. That IT was law
can not be questioned 10 this charge
II required the Jury to believe the de-
tcndart innocent before they could aoapt
made upon the jury Is not probable, when /
the whole charge Is looked to. The court 4
charged The defendant Is presumed 10
be Innocent until his guilt Is established /
by legal evidence beyond Il Reasonable I
doubt. And m case yOu have n reasonable I
doubt OF defendants guilt you will nc.
quit him, and so say by your verdict I
Affirmed Hurt +. J.
Jim White. from Jefferson conviction
for murder in first degree-life iniprisors
ment. The application for contlnuance We
property overruled-the diligence being
wholly insufficient. Defendant was in /
ldicted under name Of lin White; whereas
the copy Of the Indictment served upon
him rected his name as Jim White. When I
arraigned and after pleading 10 the in
dictment, ne requested that he have two +
days service OF a true certified coDr of t
the Indictment as returned into court, +
tne reason assigned being d variance Ia
the name. This comes too late after Ar Z
raiEnnient and plea. and besides the vari-
Anee Was iniindterlal. The bill OF exception
Is roo iudeiiulte to be considered. The tes-
timony OF Bender was relevant 10 thai
question Of malice and motive. There was
cumstantial evidence. The psoof of con-
fessions OF defendant relieved the court OF
NC guy q 20 drElns Ipqn ne trial
confessions made upon two different oc-
casions The defendant introduced proof
W ittie eilSrl lhAt ne was intoxicated when
the second confession WAS made and he
himself stated that If he made such con-
fessons he had no recollection Of II. His
memory WAS rather distinct as 10 the
circumstances surrounding hin up to az
well MS Immediately after said confession
was shown to have been made. tipon this
state Of ease the court refused this
charge; You are instructed that before
YOU can convict the defendant on his
confession tor oral statemenD- 4 any was
made by him. you must be satisfied from
the evidence that lie WAS IN such a mental
condition or state OF mind - the time Of
realize and understand the import OF ma
ture of siieh statement II any and IN case
Of a reasonable doubt thereof arising ont
OF the evidence. you should moi consider
There was no error n refusing this
charge. lntnxicatioH OF the accused al (,
the time he may have made the confess
sion wonld be matter Tor the jury to
would Tend 70 affect the weigh! Of such
hut would not exclude such I.
confeFsion from being put A evldeuue
The degree OF INVESTIGATION which leaves
enc capable Of narration Of pas. events
or Of stating hesown participation IN a
crimo Is not sufficient 90 exclude the in
oulpntofy. statement from the consdera-
ton Of the JURY Affirmed. Davidson, J.
ia Oatman from Blanoc conviction for
cattle theft We think the evidence IS IN
to support the conviction Res
Jim JacKson. from Dallas rhs eyidenee
81 this case IS not sufficient 70 siipport
the conviction Reversed Davidson !.
SUPREME COURT
fsnpreme Court John w stayion. chief
Justice. Y, r. Gaines aud n. ! Brown.
uas9ciafes; g s. Morse, clerk Court
located q Auslinl