Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-04-30

Atirr verdict appellant discovered that one
81 ny Jurors Had served term In the PEN
l.'htlhEF under conviction for theft. The
Si1tc showed full pardon. granted after
~ sentence had expired 10 Is urged that
tht governor had no authority 10 grant u
PARDON aii'r the convict mud served his
term, and that, II the uuthrOlty existed. a
iull pardon does not authorize the con
Nift To SIT ON 1urlcs. II Is held that the
governor Is authorized to pardon after the
g.uenNo has been fully cxplnted Rivers VS.
SlnIe' ~ ca. App, III; q Grim, Law Mag.
ii- When 2 full pardon takes effect all
disabilities disappear and the grantee
stands as " he had never boon convict.
u II restores the convict To Ills right Of
suffrage aud his competency as Juror
Affirmed. opinion by Davidson j,
rite, Coleman vs.. statc-Appcal from
Gullud Murder Of the hrst degree with
IN" sentence, There IRE no hills Of OK
eoptlon or statement Of facts Tho charge
Is applicable 10 state Of ease prDvnhlc
nhIHr mo Indictment, aud there Is nothing
IN the record requiring discussion. Affirm.
cd opinion by Davidson. J.
Collin Mckinney vs.. Stnte-Apncal from
Cray son; Assault TO murder. There was
~ error In refusing a continuance Iu-
uiotments presented Feb. o. 1905. aud ar
rest immediately followed. on Feb Is
COUNSEL learned that two men passed the
plaCe OF assault and that their names were
learned by accident March I. Ii is not
oy detendnnt he should have advised them
earlier, II was alleged that said parties
knew that the assaulted party had a pistol
am lreI u upon that occasion II IL not
stated that these parties were present and
saw tue assault, Neither diligence nor ma.
fertility Is shown. by two other witnesses
\ was expected to prove mat just before
the assault The assaulted party was nrncl
and had made threats against appellants
hic. Tiny were present the duy before
"gu a postponement was asked. In view
on me thcts THIS evidence appears to he
uhnlhterial, There was M evidence rcdut-
ing charge upon aggravated assault.
lhcrc was no evidence to warrant tho
charge upon self-defcnse, which the court
gave The court expresses surprise that
aolendant was not given the highest pen
ATTY Affirmed. opinion by Henderson, j.
JAMES T. Vance vs.. Staie-Apncnl from
Baylor; Theft Of cattle. The indlctemeut
Wns presented In King county and sent 10
hete that the court In the latter county
mad no jurisdiction and this court Inns
none on appeal because the record sent IN
rom the court In Baylor shows that the
grand jury which found the Indictment was
composed of eleven men, The assistant
attorney moves to eGpmre thnf
palt ~ the record. or II this be not done.
then That thu state he permitted 10 oi6
me certificate n the clerk OF King county
showing tlint the grand Jury returning I'M
nlll was legally cnnstltute,te aud that lilo
Sctllifate ~ transfer TO H8ylor showing
mt eleven jurors WIS n mistake This cor
tlhcqtc Is not contrnyortcd and Shows a
ieSll grand jury. This court is autLor.
lHeu 70 ascertain such matters of fact os
Mny pr necessary 20 tho exercise Of ia
jurisdiction nnd can INQUIRE into tho state
or the rgcnrl In King ns wril rs In Ravior
county Mnilou Ia dismiss overrnled There
NNN some evidence tending TO show that
tho animal was owned hy appellant or bis
motner The court gnve no sul,stpntintirr
chnrge mon this rh1ae ~ tho ensc nnd