The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1894-01-29

/ larution was no part OF the res geslNc'
Special charges Nos. and were not
law and the other charges are given In the
main charge so far as they had any APP
pllcation to the facts OF the case. the
evidence is sufficient. Affirmed. opinion
by Smkins, j.
Ellis Barnett and Kate Mclean W.
state from Collin; conviction for adultery.
The parties being Jointly indicted and
Jointly tried, the state, over the objection
OF defendants. introduced the wife OF Ellis
Barnett uhe appellant, who testified
as to the most inuuiputory facts in the
case. This was error The court also
erred IN limiting counsel to seventeen
minutes for arguing the facts OF the
case Judgment reversed. Opinion by
Eiml,ins. j.
John Moore We. state from Hopkins
county, conviction for theft Of cotton.
'It is Insisted by appellant that ms the
Indictment alleged the theft OF $50 pounds
OF cotton Of the aggregate value Of SEQ,
that proof of the THEFT OF a less quantity
can not sustain a conviction. While Il Is
true that when the indictment charges
various articles OF obviously different val-
ues. and alleges the aggregate value Of
, the whole and not the separate value OF
each that proof of the theft OF some of
, yet such reasoning has no application
, where the property Is Of uniform value
, or is all Of the same kind or character
Us cotton in bulk. and whore II is a SIM
r pie calculation to ascertain the value per
pound.
There was no error Ia permitting The con-
: versation between Parchman and Will
Jams. IN such conversation Williams
, only asserted his innocence and gave his
reason therefor The evidence as to the
f quantity Of cotton stolen is conflicting,
but the jury settled the conflict against
appellant. Affirmed. Opinion by Sim
I ltlns. ].
a, Joel Moore VS. State, from Hopkins
3 county. This is companion case to
John Moore just decided, and for the ren-
son therein stated the judgment is at
4 drmed. opinion by smkins j.
+, James Hutchorson VS. State, from Falls
., county; conviction for perjury. Appel
, liant having boon tried IN the county court
for aggravated assault and battery on
u ella Sanders. sWure IN his own behalf
e chat ne aia not strike her He WAS then
Indicted Tor perjury. The state introduced
u The complaint information, the evidence
o Of the trial and the testimony ot appel
liant in the aggravated assault case. Ap-
renant then offered the Judgment Of ac-
quittal, which was excluded. I'm ihiS there
was mo- crror; because such judgment can
not be considered as bearing upon tn"
defendant. hence
y such Testimony is immateriul A Witness
STATED only n part OF appellants testl-
3, mouy Ou the aggravated assault cas1
a TO this defendant objected, because he d'd
not state the whole of such testimony
n 10 rniv nacpqegrv TO prove go much
~ or tho testimony OF the defendant as re-
hates ia tbe particultr facts on which the
r. rcriIrv is assigned Appellant contends
~ mat as the evidence shows that he struck
y, TIla Sanders IN self defense. Il was Who'll
~ ~ lmmaterial that he sWore fglsoly about
striking her The record does not support
10 tbis contention. but II II did We can not
" understand how the iustncss Of any quar-
rel can excuse one In swearing falsely
- about II. The charge IS correct Affirmed.
y Oririon nv SirnlylDs J.
=,
y Tird Trarv VS.. state. from Ellis county:
- conviction FOR aggravated assault. The
. evidence is sufficient 10 sustain the yer
" dJrt Tbo court aid not err I'm ovorrulng
o. me pot,op 10 retax cost on the ground
} gtoted Art 1s23. II. s.. has no aupIicntion
In criminal cnses Affirmed OpluIon By
u sir,Rins. A.
a
!. Oceola Roberts vs.. State, from Milan
i rniiurv. conviction for theft from the
S ncrson The verdict Of the fury reads az
fniIo,vs. "vve tho firv md mo defendant
y ,,,iItv as charged I'm the Indictment nnd as
~ sors his punishment at conprisuninent iu
va,rs" ,rbiq verdict is attacked for in-
IS ssnggi,ia,cv II IL well settled where the
p. so,,e. Co. ciaar that neither Incorrect au-
70 tborro INV nor ungramnticaI lsng,Iape >, n
70 render "A verdict illcpal or void and that
t n "a 10 be reasonably construed and IN
Re- s,trb manner as 10 give n the meaning
70 t1,npds5 IN he conveyed by tho iury. n
No ,,,,,1 "cnnnrigonment" consiiftttes no
word In the English Language. sun the
verdict f. perfectly ntoiIFihic. The words
4 ''at conprisonmcnt" may be rejected with
T., g. ,rs,stog that the charge IN regard
# o., 5"r.,,,lo,t,s asp1snation az tho stolen
g ,,r5rerry while sufficient N nupllod I'm
b ordinnrI, tbeft cases rs incorrect ana nu.
. damenfallv wrong when applied ia this
L case Wc prc tBable to aprreciate The
i dlstlnetion. n The possession lg reasona-
g bly, accounted for In either case
e wiso ann faudulently The state