The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-02-14

prove by these two witnessed that tim IA
ceased vas superior to himself in size and
strenRih. rms was not allowed, beceus.
the rule had been invoked, and the othor
witnesses testified to the same fact The
ruSns bi 'ne court IN this respect was not
Jury that the right of self-defense CON.
mences when the necessity begins aud
enas when the necessity ceases. THIS is a
correct proposition Of law. and the charge
u the light of the testimony, Is correct
me instruction upon self-defense does not
,,,in nli,h1 tnat upOn manslaughter. We
thlnK me evidence sufficient to sustain the
CONVICTION Opinion by Davidson, j.
BUD HALL, from Parker: conviction for
Detting at pool table--Affirmed.
@Fpeiiant contends that the indictment
charges no onense against the law. We
10 not agree to this Under article SOi
Penal Code betting at any table. by what
socVer name, Is an offense against the law
hricle S2S states that all character Of
t'tples eXhihNed for the purpose Of gaming
are prohibited by law. The evidence is
suiiicient to support the conviction. Opin.
ION by Hurt. L. j.
WILL sCROGGINS, from Hill; conviction
for killing mules-Reversed.
The evidence is wholly insufficient to
support the conviction. Opinion by Hurt,
i. j.
HUI GOREE. from Polk conviction for
hog theft-Atfrmed.
The charge of the court Was correct. We
have carefully read the record, and, while
the defendant offered testimony which
tended TO show tina. he may have married
the hogs inno.enuy. believing that he had
authority to do so. yet the evidence on the
part of the State In our opinion was suf
ilcient to overcome this and establish be-
yond reasonable doubt appellants guilt.
Opinion by Hurt, Z, j.
WASH PHILLIPS, from Grimes; convic-
tion for hog thef,-Affirmed.
The only ground urged by appellant ia
the insufficiency of the evidence. After Il
careful examination of the record, we
think the evidence supports the convic-
tion. opinion by Hurt, r j.
EN PARTB WALTER FoRKE. rroN,
uadaloupe-RcNerScd.
Appellant was arrested for murder, ana
sued out writ of habeas corpus, and upon
hearing was refused bail and appeals to
this court. We have carefully read the
evidence, and are of opinion that appel
liant is entitled to bail, hut do not think
II Is proper to discuss the facts or give
our reasons for the conclusion reached IN
view of the fact that he Is to be tried he
fore jury. The Judgment Is reversed and
bail granted IN the sum of $1,000. OPINION
by Hurt, l.. j., Davidson, j. concurrng
Henderson, j.. dissenting.
MATT GOWEN, from Harris; conviction
for burglary.-Atfrmed
The bills Of exception not being filed in
time can not be considered The alleged
newly discovered evidence does not al
pear to be material, or even admissible,
IL true. Opinion by Henderson, j.
CHARLEY STANFTTLD from Hill; con-
viction for carrying a pistoi.-Aiilrmed.
The appellants defense was tnat ne
was n Traveller The proof showed that he
lived with his father in Hill county. ana
had gone to an unclc's pace. fifteen miles
distant in McIennan county on visit.
and returned the same day. on his route
home he was arrested, and pistol round
on his person. In contemplation OF law
he was not a traveller. opinion by Hen
derson. j.