Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-02-09
The Higher Courts,

The Higher Courts
Dallas, Tex, Feb. $. -rhc following Is
synopsis 0f decisions rendered nt Us
last SITTING hy the court OF criminal al
peuls
Richard Schurtzrr- From Dallas. Con.
yirtiDn for selling liquor 10 minor with
ont written consent Of parents, After
careful examination of the facts We are
Of opinion that the evidence does mol
show that the appellant knew that thi
yondee WIS a miuur In this character
Of cDse this iS necessary. Reversed
Hurt T.. j.
I.ounie smith From johnson: Couyin
tiuu for burglary. The charge uf the
court was correct There was no evil
deucc nHt the pistol Qruits OF tile bur
gIaryl was given ia appellant hy the
boy, Appellant sNore thai hr purchased
II from tue boy. The requested charge
was properly refused The evidence sup
ports the verdict Affirmed, Hurt, J., j.
Ahc Riddle-From Jack The com,
plant clurgcs that Que ABB committed
the assault and battery The information
alleges that one Abe Riddle committed
the assault aud battery The complaint
must state the mime ct the accused, II
known. aud 10 not known must give
some reasonably definite description OF
him The Complaint Is worthless,
The Information iS not supported, and
therefore Ens no legal existence. Re.
yersct and dismissed, Hurt, i, j,
II J. Wandcl From BcXnr. Tho Va.
lictmtul embraces both articles IBb aud
90 =. g., blends the fact iu one count
which constitutes the contaminated of.
H..Hs ID. N.s d.
make the doer thereof an ac,
complete io the abortion. This
is had pleading II should have
declared on Che first article iu one count
and on thu second IN another count
The court should have submitted To the
jury the rule as to the testimony of an
accomplce Because the indictment is
fatally defective the Judgment is re-
{Gtoed ,ml the prosecution dismissed
Hurt T., j.
EN partc John H. Scgars- From Brown
Appeal Tor a refusal Of the county Judge
Ia frlcaso appellant under M information
charging him with violation of the local
option law, The rcntor claims the locnl
option district which embraced the city
OF bruwiWood and a portion of the coun.
try lying around said city was moi IL.
gllly. defined and designated; that the
subdivision should first have been dcsir
mated by the commissioners court before
an election was ordered This position /,
not wen taken The record shows That
the limits OF the proposed subdivigion
law '''''' ~
. Relator inslsts that the local op,lon
option law passed In lsg3 "a invalid he.
cause T. putports to be an amendment ~
nt,e VI H. y, when, in fact. tho aid
Ilue had BEEN Repealed by the local optiop
A. =
said title was not repealed liz ihr ny,
ol lSSs nut certain articles onlv vnr'
Wnthdcd and o new article was nIdcJ L,
SAID act These amondmcnts nnJ NH.
non lheh became q part OF the revised
9Ntules. me contention here Is TINT
Tue caption and lirst section Of tho ac,
OF lSv3 should have declared II y, ~
an act to amend title B3 of the revisns
sNultes ~ amended by the act Of Anvil
u.s. While u Is true that the candon
ana hrst section should prpperly S,a,.
~ sult'u' we do not think the failure
~ i,lNe respect hvalldates the law. For
Wmle tho caption does not ia oxnrsss
ilgrms refer 10 the act of 1887. il nnonss,
uohablN means the revised stntntcs
amended by that law, because nrnons
the articles set forth In the canton Will
tne act Of lS'lS seeks to amend 4 no ~
NV which was added by tho nrt a.
1850 kelltQr further contends thnt ~
act OF lS'li Is Imperative AMI Inrnii,,
oeeanse IL provides no penalty ami ,on
not therefore be- enforced. Article (Sio
or SAID act declares that anvone ,,iai,y
ug me local option law shall he nunisbsi
Us prescribed In the peual code I'M
Soh'3nVon here Is that article 3IS u ~
NY oern repealed by tho act of lSS-
Nnleh mas prescribed different nenei,i,1
l2l uiuefent violations, and rNne,iei Nv
"a penalty For The rcss6,s, ebe IVA
s,stel .ghe penal code" referred Az ,,.
article aSiH Of the act of ISM A. ttho
l p,s e91s AS Z stands amended Nv Xxx
YNt OF 1857. BY reference 10 Mil rc,
, wissre : no difficulty N undersiaalins
Mnat penalty has been pr..ssribea ior ~.
Niensr OF which appellant sf,nds
t,piStsel, we do not think the irrcgiinr
ilHi ma 70 set L aside Affirmed sim.
r,,,, 1 Il, p9ws9n- From Lamar; Con.
.s,,py ,,.. ioi burglary The court erred IN
ssiislns appellanl's application fer 70 con,
S a.ln.s.l John Dawson, an aceompiiee
o Ssuyt S N;ns The stolen goods III Tie
prove thar lel.h Dawson was sGiiinc .be
ssoen E9els' ,aad THIS fasi would have |
s'ewn John Dawson to " an accom-.