The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-06


conflict against appellants and We can
not disturb their verdict. The verdict OF
the jury Is us follows. 1--WE, the Jury
rolk. guilty Of murder in the ftrst de-
gree and assess their punishment Mt fe
imprisonment In the State pcnitentiary.'
N,,pe"tenIS 'ohtvnd, tnal ms Nspa,Vt u
nroved by TINS court i'm Mootry W.. state.
decided at the present term.
Opinion 10y Hurt j. j.
LECK WHITE, from Grimes, conviction
for hog thcit--Affrmed.
The only question Is the sufficicncy of
81 -, -. . ..,., a., a,,,,,.,,,,
~ .''NN"NN !" o"P'''' Wv WV ~ '''
We think the testimony amply sufficient
Tho state introduced "A cu-dcfendant who
va, udt.ted for Tho CANA orfo,ac aud
aEalnst Wno,n We p foS,vUu,"h nuu p1Hh
ut, ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ,yen,,1 ~
'.,,,,,,,.t,n ,oa t,s,,,sid "a n, ntint VII
ncssrs'
opinion by Hurt, r !.
H.. ...,. >, =, r,,, e ruv,,, nam,
IN j' srt,,,, ~ r. i'"' i'''' ~ ''''
W. ~, - N.Y.
Appellant was rcnlanucn I" JAZZ lot the
murder of one Butler, who sued out a
writ of habeas corpus before the district
-, 49,, AN ..,,,t,
iHNkc' WIZ i'hi"iin,l i,,iH =" jan "Nuu"'
nAi, nild ne "pp,"tn q, N.Y. Vntri NY ~.
S",1i,,tu IN u, W r n'i ~, H.
o, opinion nav ln're was no er'or III '"'
luuEthvht itiuIus nhll' ,,,, =,
oPuioh ny iiEnIu'rSoi,' D. D"''uso" o.
ana not Slt IN inns case
| ,1,,,, >, ,-.,o,, -. ,,,,. ,,,.,,,
| join "A toN, from haiIns' cohN'o''oh
Tor ther'-Aitifined'
Appellant moved for continuance
| vrir,,,b v-as denIad and execution reserved
n w,''1'' Voc ". II '"' ,a,o a,',, ra,,,
me huuoh 'd'lS 10 sta'' WY '"N'S ~
pocted TO he proved by the apseht WI
| nosSes, but only states colclnS!Vi' innre
| WAS no error III tne Tuii'b on Wy Nu''l
| Appellant contends ,hh' ne Whs pinv ', "''
! ter he was served with a COPY of the in,
| dictment The trial was ON iueSdly and
y" was r,rNvu M,rI n ,,ai sunday shout,
No, he c1,,nied az rro,,ndless.
Opinion by henderson, i.
| MARTIN STEINBERGER, Ir, from Ar
cher, conviction for Opening parroo'"
| Motlon In arrest Of Indictment was made
| . 49, -, ,,.,,,,,.o lot,,cor
poc""Sc " AZ" "'"sV" w., ,,,,
the complain ana inc lhiorHhai'"h' iho
| complaint alleges that the election was
| held for the purpose of "clccting a gov
ernor and other State officers Judges
congressman and county officers The
| Information alleges the election was held
for the purpose OF "olertlug a governor
and other State officers, judges. congress
men. members OF the legislature. county
ancc. Appellant proposed TO prove that
| parties told him that IL was no offense
TO open the saloon after ne poils n',.'
u.oaen, imis Wi Al, ,,nrsons arc required IL
| know the law. THE complaint charged
that Martin Stenhergcr, Jr. comm i, '. 'a
me oilensa ~. r,ntor or sonior' hui al.
io@es i, was "Nnrtin steinbcrgcr." II h.
| - neceayarv for the information to state
| ~, 1, ,,,as Mnrtin steinhergcr. Jr There
| 10 No vnrtonce I'm this matter. The verdict
| nf ,ba turv is sufficient
| oninion by Henderson, j.
| "p''''
| ro,, ,,or WE'LL from lack; conviction
| ,n, nan NJ n chick, n--Revcrscd.
| iV' , A.. ,,ro,c nv the
Appellant propose" =" -,
! wintCss Walker, whose case ior '''' PAM
! offense had been dismissed. that y shor'
| ti,ne before the alleged theft OF the
cht"l,or H. mud dofendant and Smith pro.
nneod ia hnvc come fun out Of the pros
! drwtcr erI nt..red to 10 to his hen roo T.
catcb a cbicitrn mnko II squat, and rur
az Tor their anus ,meni Upon objection
| ~ the STATE this testimony WAS excluded
mo defense sci up in this case was, tha'
| nc ,,,,s mo fraudulent lntent 10 appro
nriatr Tho chicken to their permanent
~. nu, fnr anot.t apnclIaut and two boy
a na,, "a catch a chicken OF the prose
| si,for make IL squnIl. and then run off
| The rclectpd testimony was pertinent Il
,his tssne ana was admissible.
| pnirt1r nv Hurt r. J.
w, % ,e, azlement-Afnrmed.
w." ~ 20 -, OF A & Winston
me wan ~ ,,, caso Annellonl
wac no' an 80, a. oooct odm,tto.