Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-12-25

M
jdr negligent homicide. fned SI5--Af-
krmed-
Ma. The statutes sufficiently define
,~ligent homicide. There was no error
Allowing Witnesses TO testify TO declara-
ns MAILS by appellant where the body
deceased was found In the road and
uly few minutes after the accident &C.
rred, as such declarations were u part
\ the res gestae.
sbe main charge sufficiently defines
rrligcnce. IL Is immuterial whether the
oeased was thrown from the wagon
Ethoui any violation on his part, but SIM
n on account OF the speed Of the driving
In attempting to got out Of the vehicle
was thrown therefrLm. The evidence
pffclent
Opinion by Henderson, j.
j. HANiAMAN, from Brazus; convic-
don for selling beoi to u minor.-Af-
fined
He'd: That the State is not bound to
rove the want OF consent Of the parent or
rarilan.
The facts did not require IA charge to
h Effect that II some one else had sent the
lnor to purchase the beer 1t would not
ca sale TO minor. Because there was no
Exception reserved to the action Of the
curt In refusing the appellants challenge
b cause 10 certain juror. such ncuOu
kil not b. revised.
Opinion by Hurt, i. j.
R. PEEL, from Travis: conviction for
forgery; given two ycars.--AfiirmeL.
There are two theories In this case. II
iifsr be true appellant IL guilty as
haiEed; first, that appellant procured r.
Peel Of Sun Marcos. Hays county. TO
in the name OF T. ]. Peel of Montgom-
r county to an appeal bond in a civil
s'e. Second, that appellant. with fraudu-
cuh,y 10 sign the bond and subsequently
aised i as the signature. of T. ]. Peel OF
Lontgomery county. Held: That the sec
I'd theory is amply sustained by tho evil
snss.
Opinion by Hurt, p. J.
foM COOK. from Harris; conviction for
murder In second degree and given TWEEN
" years.--AfilImed.
Because there is no statement of facts
hat can be considered by the court and
error appearing of record, case Is af-
Opinion by Davidson, j.
GEORGE CRAWFORD. from Harris; con-
vftion for assault to murder, given two
Jsafs.-Affrmed.
The action Of the court in refusing con-
ihuanee and In admitting and rejecting
,itinony tan not be revised because no
.ls Of exceptions were reserved. The In
stment 3 sufficient. as is the evidence.
Vpinion by Davidson. j.
llEX RUTLEDGE. from Harris; inlict-
ment for assault to murder and convicted
Of an aggravated aassault.-Afhrmed.
Held; That II error was committed In
10 charge on assault to murder appellant
ant complain. as he was not convicted
that offensc. There was no evidence to
sitlfy charge on sclf-defense. The
large on manslaughter was correct.
opimon by Davidson. j.
Ohm WILLIAMS. from Walker; couvic-
uon Tor burglary. given three years IN
We reformatory.-Af
TIRE was no occasion for the court 10
ws the special charge asked by the ap.
tllant TO the effect that II the Jury
nould believe that the money offered In
siaence was not the same money alleged
nave been taken from the possession
inunser Il Baldwin to ucuutt the defend
~ me charge. on clrcumstantial evii-
ssee presented all the circumstances adj
a~d In evidence and required the jury
ueileve the appellant guilty In accord;
vs. win the rule prescribed In SAID
1tfse before they corld convict. and we
.hls case.
opinion by Henderson. j.
uLEY WALKER. from Walker. convic'
uoi' ior hog theft.--Aftirmed.
~ The absence of n statement OF fncti
can not consider the materially o.
alleged ewly-discovered testimony.
~ Presented we find no error In the rec.
IA,
op'nlon by Davidson. j.
LEN TAYLOR, from Harris: conviction
~ assault to murder; given two years.-
aue time In the trial court, they ear
ecord,
op'nion by Hurt. p. ].
ne ANDERSON, from Harris; convic
lfar,,ror, burglary; given seven years
10 bills OF exceptions or assignments o
NJ accompany the record.
~ have carefully examined the state
al No nj tacts and charge of the court an'
op'aion by Hurt. +. J.
B HENDERSON. from Harris; convic
hfined. s''S" WV
sempenion case to Anderson, above. Thu
uneht OF facts was not MED within
nays after adjournment of court. "
un not be considered.
esu because OF no statement OF fact
,iianot Determine the inaterislity
rsneged newly-d.scovered evidence.
k,T,.',c 10 no error In the record.
V'uaon by Henderson. J.
MN SARGENT. from Tarrant; con
rvs uon Tor murder In second degree an
~ twenty yeais.-Afhrmed.
sn' The Indictment was I'm all respect
~ We find no error in reference I
action of the court on the motion TO
seeHinnance or for new trial.
@sie was no error In permitting the vii
Annie Wilde to testify as follows: 6
- Gown and told Mrs. Sargent h
81 ~ deceased was NJ there. tmeafl
N. me diningroom girls rooml, an
su,,SsT Won't hurt anything n 4 b
fisxhIe mat this testimony was inad
IN We can't SEQ any injury 10 appel
mus AZ the appellant was not conyicte
pnsidere IN The iirst degree we Will nc
IN M ihe charge declining that onensl
egrs.Ifge defining murder In the secon
Mr. - IN all matters correct, also IN
h se,f ~ granddaughter as was the cnars
ours II, was no error IN the action OF III
fulsr :" anmonishing the jury to pay par
<rce ~ a,lsenuon 10 each word and sci
0pInIicc,ae The evidence Is sufficient.
oy henderson. J.
veg HOOVER from oolorado-Rshsa,