Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-10-30

from Runneis county, Appellant was
convicted OF the offense OF unlawfully
and mischievously breailirg o lock on
the door OF a building. worth 60 cents.
and was fined S. 1. Ho complains
that the court erred In not sustaining
his motion to quash thu Information.
for the reason that the same failed 70
allege who was in possession of the
church bAliding, with the breaking OF
whose lock he Is charged, and thus
negative the Idea that defendant was in
the rightful possession. The point Is
well taken. While In some cases Of
malicious miachlef the owner OF the
property Is immaterlal as In case OF
wanton cruelty to animals. yet In other
have been In some person other than
the defendant. The motion 10 qunsh
should have been sustained 2. APP
peiiant also complains that the verdict
is contrary TO the evidence The les
timony shows that Joe Harding and
wife conveyed o certain lot In the town
OF Baillnger to certain trustees, of
whom the defendant and the prosecute
ing witness were two. That the
church was built upon said lot by vol
untAry contributions and eonerega-
ton OF nfty members organized. Tho
members became divided upon the
subject OF Sunday school," Cartwright
leading one faction, which was de-
cided minority, but which was chiefly
composed OF the original members,
Cartwright, whom'the record disclnses
as the ins,igator OF all the mischief,
finally consented to have a bible
class" but after this had continued
some time he locked the church. He
was not an officer OF the church hut
merely one OF the trustees. and had no
authority from the faction to which
he belonged to lock the church. Ills
reason for locking the church. In his
own Language, Is; Il gave my consent
for Bible class. but Instead they had
three or four classes They taught
only the Bible. but / considered Ii a
violation OF my agreement to have q
Bible class, l went TO church on sun
day. when forty or fifty were present;
conducted services, after which l got
up. representing the church, and With
drew from six OF the members. includ-
ing defendant and his WIFE on account
OF their ungodly walk. They proteated
and demanded that charges be pre-
ferred. l then notified all present that
l was going to lock the church, and
put the matter to the congregation and
they voted against It," But In spite or
this vote, Cartwright purchased u new
lock for 20 cents and locked himself
and two others in the church, The
appellant, VINO was one OF lNt tlutINt
drove to the church that night and
being refused admittance by Cart
wright broke down the door and lock-
The truth is, the Church OF Christ In
South Ballingcr, like many other
churches, is inflicted by member
Cartwright whose zeal outstripa his
religion The facts do not sustain the
conviction, In any view OF the case.
1t Is not even shown that defendants
acts were prompted by malice. Judg-
ment ls reversed and the cause dis
missed. Slmkins j.
Richard Burleson vs. State--Appeal
from Limestone county; Conviction for
murder In the first degree. The court
did not err in overrullng defendants
motion Tor continuance, since II failed
to show any diligence. Moreover, de-
PENDANT admits facts on trial contra
dirtory to those set UP In his motion
for continuance. The testimony,
though circumstantial sustains the con-
viction. showing q case Of murder with
robbery as its motive Defendant saw
for several miles into the country,
deceased when the latter received GER
tain money in town, and followed him
where the deceased was murdered, De-
PENDANT when first seen thereafter de-
MED that he had any money, but upon
being searched the Identical money
which deceased had been paid was
I found upon defendants person, judy
ment affirmed. Slmkins, j.