The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-06-28
REHEAR1Nc PRAYED FOR.
Assistant Attorney General Trice
Files His Petition
IN THE CLINE CASE FROM GONZALES
no nolds That the Declsion Of the Court
OF Cr'minsi Appeals Ia Rx,raor.
binary and Without Prscedent.

Austin, Texas, June 27.--Thc following
motion for a rehearing was filed in the
court of criminal appeals today by AS.
s.s'ant Attorney General Trice In ~.
Cline case, which is attracting consider
ahle attention, owing to the alleged rad
cal and revolutionary decision of the cour,
| therein:
No. SCI tSecond Assignment Marshall
'iinc tappellanU vs. the State Of Texas
arpc'lce), appeal from Gonzales county:
| motion for rehearing:
| Now comes the State by attorney. and
moves the cour, to set aside its tudg-
ment of reversal rendered therein. and
grant II rehcarlng for the reasons fol-
lowing:
| l. because the court erred in holding
'hat the in,roduc, on In evidence Of a
witness taken on the examining trial OF
| tho defendant was viola,vc of section 10
of the bill of rights. in this: /, appears
| from the record herein. tina; the defend
| ant was present and represented by conn
sol when said witness was examined be-
fore the examining court, and tina, the
defendant did then fully cross-examue
said witness. and that all of his testimony
was reduced TO writing aud duly sworn
To by said witness before the examining
| court. and the same properly au-
| thentlcated by the court and proved up
| hv him when the same was offered iii
evidenre aea!ns, the defendant On final
| trial The occurrence Of tho above facts
rendered the testimony of sad witness
admissible regardless of section ~ OF tho
| bill Of right The language there used.
| shall be confronted with the witnesses
against him had well defined and
| fixed judicial meaning at the time ard
| long before tho adoption OF our present
| const tuition. and by long line Of deci-
| : ons heretofore rendered. II Is held that
" here a hefendan. was present aud had
tho opportunity Of cross-examining tho
wl'rcss against him, and afterwards. he
fore the final trial. said witness died.
became insane, or WAS kept away hy the
| ndv.rsc PARTY. that his testimony so
taken conld he Reproduced and introduced
on he final Of any subsequent trial OF
! tho case.
I See Summers vs state Ohio St. .3I:
Brown va. Commonwealth, 70 Pa. S25;
Hcndrick VS.. state. io'liumph. 47a. Uni
ted States vs.. McComh Mclean. 2sb;
"'bren vs.. commonwealth . ha'n, 'p''
10, -. ,,rr,,,. Az colo l1:
| PEOPLE vs.. Dcvine. 4s Colo, ~, Davis vs.
state. Ii Ala. an: Moslor VS. state. 81
A,a. rs: state vs Johuson.le Ncv III. state
KS. lIarler II VI. SIS; stat" VS.. hlno'''
:" Mo. '''' go asy
400; cooloy's Contest Lien f'', ',,' :.
AS before stated '"e 'i'ns' 9.'
! COZ tron,od WITH the Witnesses nA"'",.
him" before their use and a''P''o" u"
our constitution had received 'ne,r '''.a"-
ing and significance from lnd,e'a' ''1,-
s,ons The preSu"p''on 'ness s,,,,,nn ,,s",,
that the trainers OF our .''S.'.''',o, , ,sa,
said language IN us iesa' sense '"' H
they were fu''N app''S'' :" n ro,,oa
nincance Of said terms IT IS we" Se''''
.s.,,,, o- f,xea iud,cial meaning. that
,a,,.,,,al,n,s ar Tho trainers Of the or
' ,-,. ..,id forms 81