Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-12-11

Tyler Tex, Dec. lo.--The following
opinions were rendered in the court OF
criminal appeals;
Norris Mckinney VS.. state, from
Houston county; appellant was convict
ed under article $40 OF Penal Code for
the theft OF growing Indian corn. The
indictment is sufficient, since steal
ing" and "feloniously taking are syn
onymous terms under the statute. The
judge by his charge did not require the
jury TO believe that the eorn was either
fraudulently or feioniOusly taken, not
mentioning either of these Ingredients
In the charge, although appellant re-
quested same by special charges ten-
dered. For this reason the judgment
is reversed Hnd the cause remanded.
Hurt, p. ].
]. L. Treadwoll vs.. state, appeal from
Mason county conviction for theft OF
cattle. II appellant was not present at
the place and time Of altering the mark
OF the cattle. he is not guilty, There
is but one witness that testified TO his
presence there, and he IS extremely
doubtful us to appellants identity.
For this uncertainty the judgment Is
reversed and the cause remanded. Da-
wilson, j.
Tx parte Richard Anderson. from Mi
lam county. appellant was convicted
In the county court OF theft OF prop
erty OF value less than $50. the penalty
assessed being one day IN jail and Il
fine Of s25 with costs, both amounting
to $3.50. He worked on the county
convict farm for 10i days and was sick
In fall for thirty-siX days, For the
former he contends he was entitled to
a. a - 81 IV.H
per day. Appellant contends that he
is thereby discharged. and sued out
his writ OF habees corpus for his re-
lease. The court below refused to grant
Same. This was error. The judgment
IA reversed and dismissed and the re-
lator Is discharged. Davidson, j.
w. II. Campbell vs.. state. from Me-
dina county; this is conviction for
horse theft. The court did not err In
overruling appellants motion for new
trial. since the same was too vague
and Indefinite Nor did the court err
in overrullng motion for new trial.
There was conflict in the testimony
,non the question as TO whether the
Jury was sworn, the preponderance boz
ing In favor OF the affirmative. There
are matters in certain bills OF excep-
tons that can not be considered for the
reason that bills We're filed too late
for consideration Hurt, j.
Ex parte Ludwig Strey, from BeNar
county: relator was tried and convict
"a for an attempt to commit arson. He
WAS found guilty by the jury OF the
crime charged, the penalty assessed
bning two years In the penitentinry.
The Judgment entered against appel
liant was for the crime OF arson, and
he was sentenced to the penlteniiary
two years for that crime. For these
reasons he sues out this WITT OF naoeas
cnrnus alleging that he Is Illegally
,ylthheld by the superintendent OF the
nsnitentiary, The records OF the court
40 simply n record Of what was done
~ The court, and II 4 mistake is made
~ NAV be corrected. The appellant
NAY he brought back and resentenced
at NEXT term Of the court We hold
mat the error Is not material ana re-
fuse 10 grant the writ, believing thht
the appellant is benefited by our ae'ion'
Davidson. y 80 -, r-,,,a-
.o,,ntv. appellant was convicted for
nnrsuing the occupation OF dentistry
,yithnut flrst obtaining license from
hosrd n examiners "of the first lu-
dteiaI district" etc. The Information
49, mt alIege the residence OF de-
sendant 10 be IN Tyler county, nor;
second. that for fee ne brne'lesa
dentistry WITHOUT u A''HN- -
tbat appellant had not obtained ~
csnse from the board OF the iirst lual-
ciai district would rot necessariiy
cause MIN 10 be guilty Of crime, even
shouId he have practieed for ICES N
T,vier county. He might have optaln ny
, ueense from any other board IN the
s+ate. The Indictment falls 70 siisse
Facts constituting crime ana ny
Element Il reversed and the cause re-
,,,s,,sed. Davidson. J. -,
eandv Ramsey vs. state. from ray.
.,ts counfv: appellant WIS convicted
- r.csi,inr stolen property OF more
o. .sar The value Of $50 and his punlshi-
..sr, fxed nj eight years m the psin-
t ,'t The property wa stolen ~
= Nov 81 1s years q age. The punisn 7,
~ Tar receiving stolen property y
~, ,,su statute she same as inc punlan-
n ny s n re person stealing same same " y
n NJ esss az theft IN this Instance ne
ny, ~ sesnx under is years ot age ini 81
.s,s fact raises novel cues ,aon, 49, -.
NJ ,,,,i,hrneni Of appellant . cones ~.
We We hold that the intent q 1870 IN
ea. .,st,,re was to punish = psr's q,
,,,,,v ~ receiving stolen prppr. .,,,,,s J.,
NJ, same manner as II he haa ssSs''