Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-11-20

Andrew McVae W.. state-Appeal
from Caldwell: This cause was heard
at Austin term, 1891. and u renedrlng
Is applied for upon various grounds.
none of which are wei taNen' except
the last The appellant - charged VITA
disturbing puDAc worship. 4He merl-
torous gaound insisted upon in said
motion is that there Is no complaint
in the record as a basis OF the infOrma-
ton, and hence the judgment Is VOID
The state having mace no reply 10
said motion It must De presumed that
the record Is complete, no compliant
having been hled the uusment - re-
versed and the cause II dismissed.
Sinlnns, j.
Belle Allen vs.. state-Appeal from
Grayson: Appellant was convicted OF
receiving stolen goods and his punish
mcnt assessed al two years. The in
dlctment charges that the defendant
received from and fraudulently con-
ccoled FOR one Mamie Barnett. certain
stolen property, tO-wlt: Five "tenty'
dollar gold pieces, the value Of 500.
Appellant moved In arrest OF Judgment
on the ground that the word "tenty'
is not word. and that the Indictment
does not charge o felony. This motion
was overruled. We think there Is no
error. II Is manifest from other parts
OF the Indictment and from the whole
that the word "twshty" was meant.
Judgment affirmed Smkins. j.
Dolph Mathews vs.. State-Appeal
from Limestone: The motion for con-
ununnce Is properly overruled, since
one Of the alleged absent Witnesses
appeared at the trial, but did not testi-
ty, and 1t app ars that the others
could not have been cOgni2ant OF the
facts alleged In the motion. Defend
ants confession to the crime burg
lary) made to the officers was properly
admitted, because II was prcdicated
upon the established fact that the on
GERS warned him that what he might
say would be used In the trial against
him. and further that they did not
wish to hear defendants confession.
Judgment affirmed. Davidson, ].
Robert Brown vs.. State-Appeal
from Rusk: Assault with Intent to
murder. Appellant assigns as error
generally that the court erred IN It's
charge TO the Jury" and we think the
charge was full and fair to the de-
PENDANT, The second assignment that
the verdict is contrary TO the law and
evldcnee Is not supported by the rec
ord Judgment Is affirmed David
jim Hardness vs.. state-Appeal from
fhBl'llhAA l'lpaEtultA MS uD=
peal from conviction Of burglary II
~ assigned as error that the trial
judge instructed the Jury that they
We're to determine from the evidence in
me case and the charge upon the dues-
ton Is full and correct. II Is insisted
by appellant that the verdict Is not
supported by the evidence. Neither
point Is well taken. Judgment az
frmed. Davidson, j.
Iphp ATnena,.
from Wood. Appellant f. cha e 4 w tn
unlawfully carrying a pistol. 70 Tha
record fnlls to show the ofcusr was
committed In Wood county. Jud m Mt
u reversed and cause remandel
Davidson. ].
James Williams vs.. state 49, ADD al
from Dallas; Charged with murder.
and lifp ssntsnoe assessed. This case
came up at the late term Of this court
al Dallas and judgment was nrmed
Appellant later on filed a motion for
rehearlng which we have ex mined
and can see no reason for chlnglnr
the conclusions heretofor' reached. We
desire however to modify the state.
ment in the opinion that 'ha atDte
offered 10 prove that the defendant
attempted suicide. II seems that the
state only offered to prove that n
knife was given to defendant. but the
court promptly excluded sane But
this was immaterial. The question is.
d1fendant's ATTEMPTED suicide preiu-
dice his riyhtY2 We think not Mo-
tlon ovcrrulcd. Simkins. ].
T H. Tucker vs. state-Appeal from
Mills: Appellant was convicted below
of seduction He was refused n mo-
tlon for continuance. which set up the
absence or a witness, r. II. Peyton
We will not discuss this. since no bill
OF exceptions was reserved to the rll-
ing OF the court. 1t SEEMS that Miss
Morrison. the prosecutrix, had hereto
fore sued appellant for breach OF
promise OF marriage and said Peyton's
dispositions had been taken in that
cause In this trial appel mt sou hit
TO Introduce said deposition, but upon
the states objection IL was excluded
This was assigned as error The point
Is not well taken. The state WIS not
a party In the civil suit. Tie follow.
Ing OF the charge given below Is as.
signed rs error: THAT althou IN You
may believe there was q promise OF
marriage between the PARTIES. Vet at
the time Of such promiss or such inter.
course. " any. said female hnd a.
ready lost her virtue. and tat she
yielded 10 the carnal Intercourse mere
ly from an appeal to her lust or s.
Sion then you can not ma detan amt
guilty" The objection urged aga,ps /
this is that 1t makes no difference as
10 whether she yielded throlSh ies-
sion or other indueement, nni that O.
lng without virtue. she was not the
subject OF seduction. THIS con- N slon
Il Just. but subsequent paragraphs , (
the charge makes the law plain hat
IN, Jury could not have been mi led
Recording the motion f1r new ttial t
Is not Necessary for the inlIctmri,t
to state that defendant was MARI d
or single man. 1, Is sum ont 10
charge the plain language " TIL stat
Ne, Judgment affirmed Hue J,
Arisona and New. Mexico will com.
pletc the list or new states unless We
bring IN Alaska. Even IN Alaska DR..
Prices Baking Powder is famous,
Who Is MudEett
Boston. Nov. i9.--Herrmann Mudg-
cit alias Holmes, alias Howard alias
Howell. was discharged today by
Judge Ely OF the municipal court on
the CHARGE OF larceny made against
him by Fort Worth. Tex. parties. He
viii be sent back to Philadelphia this
afternoon to be tried there on the
charge OF conspiracy to detraud an In
suranee company
f.- a--s------------
Punman Conductor Killed.
Memphis, Tenn. Nov. 10 .-There ia
no truth In the report that a train was
hcld up near Van Buren,, Ark. tonight.