The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-02-14
|prsT CRIMINAL COURT
=. If Decisions Handed Down
ct the Last Sitting
! ,NsELY DRAWN INDICTMENTS
.o.uoc Cases Result in Dismissal.
Nan Can Not Compose
" Legal Grand Jury

4 .isians were itiNo'N
/ :, criminal appeals;
.ru from Jack; conviction for
Lea Lee III local option law-Appeai
'l mss recites that appellant
'.ssrsed with the offense of selling
ta,s,,ar liquor in a prohibited dis
!" n order to constitute a violation
,,nai option law the SAFE OF lquor
a.c,ir in subdivision 9I saia oo's,1ts
yo,er,cating liquor, There Is no
pcn lo,.s, known 10 the local option
terI''ve'.6 rohibited district" Opinion
davidson, J.
WARDEN, from Jack. conviction
ls,,,a,ng the local option law-Ap-
\ dismissed
81 n companion case to the Joe
". and for the reasons above
|, the appeal is dismissed. Opinion
Hurt, P. j.
,,,rrrJIEAD. from Easuand; con-
CO.. refusing and neglecting TO
fon ar taxation his taxable property
|speal dismissed.
l recOgnizance fails to reeite that the
k.rt owns any property subject to
[I,n in the district. Opinion by Da-
(n J.
4 ,nrR from Parker; conviction for
KIM the local option law-Appeal
missed.
bsants recoenlzance, emitting the
4 .,-,,one recites who has been con-
n =, said offcnse In this court, shall
4, from day to day and from term TO
1 y, ,be same, and not depart without
his rnurt." etc. The recognizance
"a, s,ate what court appellant Is re-
N anpcar before. Opinion by Hurt,
THOMPSON, from Parker: convic-
sor Violating local option law-Ap-
u dismissed.
!. is a companion case to the Nader
.,nve The recognizance is in the
sonditlon. Opinion by Henderson. j.
korpMAN ct al, from Navarro coun-
conyIction for selling intoxicating in
fntIng liquor to a minor-Appeal dis
(sed.
1, case originated in the Justices
y was appealed to the county court,
mon trial appellants were fined $50
and from this conviction they APP
/. This can not be done. opinion by
)ison, J.
Xxx MAGERs, from Erath-Appeal
Enlssed.
l recognizance binds the appellant to
\ the Judgment of the court of APP
|" instead of the court of criminal
hk." Opinion by Henderson, j.
ERY BAILEY. from Parker: convic-
for carrying Il pistol-Appeal dis
Esed
\ recognizance rccites that he carried
|Or" about his person n pistol This is
flfhc!ent opinion by Henderson, j.
FEEL STUART. from Harris; convic-
3 for burglary-Afflrmed.
Hills of exception appear In tho rec
The evidence Is not in the record.
Mats contention that the conviction
fNpported by the testimony can not
Pxdcfed. opinion by Davidson, j.
WILLIAMS. from Erath: convic-
Z for cattle theft-Affirmed.
RELIANT contends that the animal IN
|ion had become vested In Erath
BY as an ostray. The evidence shows
II the animal was ever estrayed,
Ne months had not elapsed and tho
pa could not have been vested in
u county as an ostray for the pur-
OF a sale, so there Is nothing in this
sation. Appellant contends that he
NE animal under a claim of right.
issue. was submitted to the jury ana
ionnd against the appellant. We see
JASON for disturbing the verdict. Opin-
py Henderson, j.
4. STUART, from Dallas; convic-
y ior permitting faro to be exhibited
NE purpose OF gaming In appellants
4s>-Reversed and dismissed.
lNlant moved to quash the indlct-
J. because the assistant county attor-
was present when the grand jury
celebrating upon the accusation
la the defendant. The assistant
~ a.torney, IN support OF appellants
~, testified that he was present
ue grand jury during their inVesti-
~ and deliberations on this case:
NJ was not prefent when they voted.
MI e'sI, on me cases. Appellants motion
~ .ee ny ms testimony; and under
NJ. si's ~ and S9i, c. G. p. the motion of
i.nt should have been sustained and
~ aplment quashed. The county at
n nay be present when the grand
~ h.stisatine an accusation. but
,r rneh 'hey are celebrating upon tho
'TS oi ilnding Il bill. Henderson, j.
! AMBo from Collin. conviction for
snissed 81" i'e' SiSen anu
ndictment IN this case is similar to
!. " he case OF Bill Stewart VS.. the
= recently decided. which held that
Enactment ~ was Insufficient to charge
S spa Sc OF Tiolatng the local oprion
rs,', re reasons We're ,siyan. The ill.,
man, uere being similar to that, the
aiSsaS reversed and the prosecution
opinion by Hurt, p. j.
sy4ps,t,rom Wood; conviction for sod
~, Ouly question is, does the evidence
!. u's conviction. We have carefully
l.Ias e testimony and do not think 1t is
By Dsv,iS1ss SUPPORT the judgment. opin-
lrr InmnsS. from Hood: conviction for
,pellan. 10 a minor-Affirmed.
>, 49,. asked a charge on accom-
49, es'lnony on the ground that the
~ was an accomplice. We do not
te,n" s view The prosecutor did not
ssupsDe,,,i IN The sale Of the llnuor and
he y uil not enter into the offense
i. He NE intent which actuatod the
d two no was no more an accompiice
yolun,a',s9h would he who unlawfully
,er. We w and willingly fight to-
icient ", mink the evidence is amply
BY Day WI SUPPORT the CONVICTION. Opin.
cSion osSSSsahAYER. from Marion; con-
s-Affirr on assault with intent to muir.
Il IN ., objects to tho action of the
nlr - admitting before the iurv the
sas Az, :, 81 a rock with which the State
ma :, we assault was committed. The
suiaclenUiIISyS lon was that the rock was
Pot coi,c,,Ss iaeatiiied. In this view NO
'ke and NJ As 10 the testimony of
Evidence JIu. the court certlties tnat
Ard - SHOWED Tho. Es....t.- '