Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-11-20
gosG GIVES HIS REASONS
,rrrrso ASIDE THE REYES
DEATH PENALTY.



i. TEX. Nov. i9.-The governor
Y WA sl.s the following reasons for
,,,,on in the Reyes case;
,,,ve oalre. Austin. Tex. Nov.
~. ~ Parte Francisco Reyes,
l J .,,, ~, Application for par
~ snnIIcant, Francisco Reyes. has
I. . ad by the district court OF
? "ronnty and convicted and SEN
w - be- hanged for the alleged
~ ~ n said county OF NJ. NJ. Horns-
s1ntembar 2j, 1892.
I,s.ian,ialiy the facts are about
4 saturday night, September "a.
al wear, ffandango' or dance
ttn 'riesn by a Mexican tenant on NJ.
,icrnsby's plantation, some ten
from the city. OF Austin. 1t
L, ~ INTO the night until broken
row In which Hornsby re-
III bls death wound from 4 pistol
| assure peace the tenant had
an MIR Hornsby and son TO at
~ dance. For this purpose they
| her The applicant. r yes. and
In or companion called his
we're strangers in the
{ae,rhood. where they had ony
1 sbnnt q week picking cotton on
I,d,olnlng farm 10 the Hornsoy
1 That night the two attended
|.,,ty Near by the platform on
mo dance was In progress, sew
|ueylcans were gambling. Appll-
nsrtner, Rossano, and one Ro-
/ Ma n row over the game. Ro-
retreated and Rossano pursued
lin a drawn. large knife called
I,lduke." Mr.. Hornsby and his
u,srceded for peace. They took
4 Rossano to prevent the eXecu-
Il hls assault on Romero They
uersuasion and. reasonable re
Il only. He became bolsterous. de-
md unmanagable.
q this point there is very little
conflict Of opinion or testimony
ehat occurred. As to subsequent
The conflicts and confusion
Neither the applicant nor his
rer" Rossano. could speak but
\ any English. They were
,gs and two white men (strang-
4 themselves) were struggling
Rossano in the dim light reflected
as from the platform and house
ws In the midst OF the struggle
Ino called out in Spanish 10 his
+ r. Reyes to shoot them" or
( II them" or xiii them" or words
Al effect The testimony In the
shows that applicant, Reyes, re-
I'M, rushed up and shot Hornsby
III the right lung and struck him
head twice with a pistol. From
z,let wound he died several days
The next day Reyes was APP
naed, arrested, and twice put to
before q Jury, and each time
rtiilty OF murder In the first de-
ard awarded the death penalty.
ZACH Judgment on these vardicts
peal was taken to the court OF
Il appeals. on the first app al
~ was reversed. The second
resulted in an afilrmance OF the
He pleads with me for execu-
snsney, claiming to be an limo
nin
Is pstltlon he contends that his
aHs fred the fatal and only
his may or may not be so. or
an number of people at the
uny two profess to have seen
lpilE and they were MeXicans
rukttered. Ignorant class. In
Material particulars these two
sss we're contradicted by other
Witnesses. The younger Hornsby
see the shooting, as he was at
ue engaged with the Infatuated
IN. He saw another Mexican
lately after the shooting run UP
his father with a pistol, whom
eyed but was not positive, was
the applicant. So the question,
u as to who fired the fatal shot
Altogether clear Of some doubt,
! the testimony Of the only two
a witnesses who profess to
zen the shooting, and waving
nts OF conflict between their
snts and other witnesses as to
ecilrred Immediately before and
ne homicide, and 1t may be con-
that Reyes, the condemned
eyond reasonable doubt, COM
the deed. Remove all doubts
point, II any exists, and admit
DID the shooting, do the facts
TO a satisfactory conclusion.
q murder in the first degree?
Aw applicable TO this case says:
aufder committed with
malice IL murder In
y degree" which shall be pun
y death or by confinement of
snder in the penitentlary for
V punishment for murder COM
Without express malice is pun
Y confinement In the peniten-
y term OF years to be de-
= oy the jury trying the case.
ula Reyes Kill Hornsby on eN-
malice? II he did, then he
oe executed. Otherwise he
not The highest approved au-
W the subject four supreme
~ court OF criminal appeals)
4'ed cases write and say that
malice Is where one. with a
-"u deliberate mind and formed
ahlawfully kills another.
i''hed design is evidenced by
circumstances discovering
rslu Intention. as, lying in
1n!ecedant menaces. former
hsna concerted schemes to do
s'nl' or other circumstances
49,, euate, deliberate mind and
1eslgn unlawfully to kill or to
serious bodily harm
t~sht probably end in
~ 81 the person upon whom
was Inflicted" CMcCoy VS..
tse g., 80, Cox VS.. State. & CT.
Il ao-snrpe VS.. State, II CT. App.
h d,s1shs OF other cases)
~, courts further say: "The
~, result from a mere sud
N ~ immediate design sprinc-
~ IN lnconsiderate impulse.
2 M excitement, however un-
srrsr unwarranted II may
Nsr Vs' State, AZ Tex, a65,
t,inr ,ssn a therein cited)
y ne mat Reyes fired the fatal
n reco sv.ii'sny' no one from Inc
laah,ou. would contend that he
I,mhi. but there Is 10 nv mind
n b. AN es Of proof, or. I may
Iate ~ Il only very meagre facts
n,ovs.a ine slightest degree tina;
81 F.1NN 70 the act H. ...........