The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1894-02-16
THE HIGHER COURTS.
rHE SYNOPSIS OF DECISIONS AS
HANDED DOWN.
RcndcrinEs OF the state Courts Of
Last Resort in Causes Taken Up
ON Appeal From tho Lower
judicial tribunals,

court OK Criminal Appea,s-J. w Hurt,
~. /. Davidson and d. j, Simdins.
judges r. l.. Henry, assistant attorney
general. Stating NJ Da,las)
ualas, Texas February l5.-The follow
Ing decisions were rendered yesterday by
taa court ot criminal appeals:
!. ~. Mckenzie vs.. State from Mitchell.
conviction TOR catte theft. The Indictment
was obtained in Martin county. The case
was BY the court transferred TO Mitchell
county. The FIRST count in the Indictment
eaorses nut the property was sto-en in
New Mexico and brought into Texas, ami
tuAt at Lnt inie o. u1r pgesentment OF tle
Indictment appellant was IN Martin coun-
~, Ibe second count ls tuu same as the
utst, except that 1t Charges that defend
anJ brought the COW INTO Terry county,
ana that IL was unJgkaHi6ad ana artacued
20 Martin county. Inc tllId count cha yes
tnat the theft was committed In Terry
county, ana that u was unorganlgea ana
attached 70 Martin county Inc fourth
count ai.escs the THEFT IN ANDREWS coun-
IS, an unoIsanzed county Attached TO
Martin county.
Connsel Tor appellant coutend that this
State has no authority 10 Try ana punish
ouenses commHted beyond It's jurisdiction,
ana that thls oIiense was wnohy commit
ted in New Mexico. suca is not
the case. This sale does not pro-
pose 70 punish the party Tor theft
committed beyond IT'S borders but
proposes to punish him for stealing the
property heyCuu its boundaries ana bring
ms his plunGer into Lnis State. Tnis pros
ecuu0n was commenced IN Martin county.
in which appellant was found. This wAs
correct pracGce, because phis offense was
* mmttJed IN part without, tnts state ana
conSummaIed in this state by the appe-
ian, bringing the stc<en property into
ms State-i e., this is the rneory OF the
state II, In fact, appellant did these
things. Texas would have a right To try
ana punish him therefor. 1t appears that
a witness for the State test,ned that he
was IN control and had the management
Of herd OF cattle in New Mexico brand
cd with a maliet; that he never gave his
consent 70 the defendant to xii such an
animal. rhis vas objected TO- because
the ownership Of the cattle could nor be
proved by an unreeorded brand, ownership
not having been proved otherwise. This
testimony should have been excluded, be-
cause our statute says al unrecorded
brand snail not be recos nized Il. Jaw 10
eyiaence Of ownership, and, If not evidence
o. c~nerst ", eVdently it IS no evidence
that a person has the manager ent and
control OF tile animals.
McLisn, an Indian police officer. tesLEe1
thai about July IL, 1872. he arrested Henry
Harding IN phe lnd.an Territory anu M
chsn.isd nisroI sbnrs Cc,,rs..i 5fts,.,sr,
bersuse II there bad bosn n consntrarZ,
nrtween nupesont ana lIari.pE d mad
ceased. the state a.iso Introdi,ce1 t,go 80
tneJ comics az beil hand NJ IJenry tgaro-
Ing ana certiaa5 canies ~ indls,,srt- 10
caring fnrfeifiires ~ satd 6ol,Js Tns
triai eourt saws. .,Tse ey,1,Ie5,,'. WA, M
pftfed an ~ b,lnat,esiv tb9f no rCrs,4f--
ADJ VAS rci a. ~ sn1 .ts cstt,s. M ~
lue haen driven "a the Rocsine cbafr