The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-06-27

Snort was q JuStlce OIL the peace anu COLI
Quoted the examining trial of defendant.
On said examining trial defendant made
Il written statement and this statement
was introduced against him on the trial
below.
In our opinion it would have been en-
trely proper for the trial court to have
treated this confession as made by the
defendant in the course of judicial pro-
ceeding, inasmuch as the justice of the
peace was qualified to try the case
against appellant, although he was
charged with stealing property belonging
to the justice. art. 600 O. Q. P) The
court did not treat the statement as
| judicial confession however. 1t charged
the jury to acquit If they had reasonable
doubt, on the whole evidence of the case,
as to defendants guilt.
| 81 The court did not err in refusing to
pemit the defense to go into the details
of family quarrels between the family of
Short and that of defendant. IL this
were permissible the trial of criminal
case would be interminable, and would
raise issues not material to the case.
The court gave defendant full latitude
TO prove the state of feelign between
Short and himself. This was all that
he could properly ask. The details Of the
ouarrels were not relevant to any issue
| in the case.
| an AT most the testimony connecting
defendant with the taking of more than
one hog was very meagree. He was only
found in possession of the meat of one
hog, and he only admitted the killing of
one hog. The indictment charged the
theft of two hogs. Under the evidence
/ the court did not err in declining to nave
/ the district attorney elect as to which OF
said things he should ask for a conyic-
| ton on.
The evidence amply supports the con-
vicHion. Opinion by Henderson, D.
James Franklin VS.. The State, con-
yiction for murder in the first degree
with life imprisonment assessed. AT
irmed.
i a. No injury appears to have resulted
/, to defendant from the course pursued in
summoning the special venire The pro-
visions of the statute relating to the sum
moning of a special venire are directory
only, and the failure of the trial court to
conform to them is not reversible error
unless injury to the defendant be shown
to have resulted from such failure.
(2) The charge of the court upon "rea-
sonable doubt is full and correct, and 1t
: was not error to refuse the special charges
requested on this subject
= (3) There were but three questions in
i this case Under the theory of the State
, defendant was guilty of murder, either in
the first or second degree, by the theory
! of the defense he was guilty of no offense
at all-he killed deceased in self defense.
> The court charged on murder in the first
: and second degrees, and on the law OF
self-defense. 1t did not err in refusing
, to charge on manslaughter. This was
! not an issue in the case. Opinion by Hen
= derson, j.
| r. III hahaac nOr-
q lpns proceeding from Hunt county. Al
] firmed.
t APPELLANT is charged with murder. The
{ Judgment Of the trial court refuses him
!. bail.
Following the settled rule of this court,
we will not discuss the evidence. We
+ are of the opinion that the judgment of
,. the lower court is correct. Opinion by
Hurt Z. j.
. Elk parte G. J. Beverly, habeas corpus
, proceeding, from Cooke county. Affirmed.
81 Relator is charged with swindling, and
seeks to procure his discharge on the
q ground that the complaint against him IS
q der which he was arrested Is defective.
al Q) Whether the complaint be suffi'
: cient or not can not be determined on
o haheas corpus. Relator has the right
"a if Ne SO desires, to be taken before
Justice of the peace for the purpose OF
n having his cause examined as the law re
v quires.
ISL ~ The warrant is fatally defective
n But, IL discharged from custody because
% Of this defect, relator could be arrested on
e a sufficient warrant, and the relief Woulo
l. be in name only. Opinion by Hurt, L. j
Iel Frank Evans vs. The State, conviction
n for robbery; from Parker county. AT
} firmed.
10 case. The case is reported and the facts
It stated in 20 s. W., 266.
itl % The application for a continuance
is was properly oyerruled. lack OF dill
b. gence to procure the testimony Of the alb
IN tent witnesses is shown, except in the cas-,
t. of witness Brtton. Defendant expected
le Il prove facts by this witness which woul'
e tend to show that he was at his hom
re Sc raj miles from the scene of the rob
nc beiv when that event occurred 1t
shown that defendants wife was presen
at the trial, and that, on the previou
m trial she swore that he was at HON
r ON the night of he.robbery. Defendan
refused to place her on the stand on thi
4 trial. 1t was thus within his power t
Al supply the testimony of the absent Wi
:. f. ness, Britton. He failed to use the ev
ID dence at his command, and can not no'
RI be heard to complain.
AZ ~ The court did not err in refusin
20 TO charge on crcumstantial evidence
an This was a case of positive testimony
90 The witness Barnard testified that b
be identified defendant as one of the robber
u There is no error in the recod. Opinio
nj by Henderson, J.
ri IF THE BABY Is CUTTING TEETl
is Be sure and use that old and well-trie
IA remedy. Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syru
le. for children teething. 1t soothes ii
ell nb;Id softans tha Gums alIavs all nail