The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-04-24

S6lRn~ Htxl1An0
.----------
was paid 10 appellant. We are of the opin,,
ion that this sale was in Weatheriord ana
not In Fort Worth.
.. The court has the right to recall a
witness of its own motion when in doubt
as to the purnott of the evidence alreaaY
given by such witness
3. The charge of the court to the effect
that If the defendant ovadcd the pro
visions Of the local option law, TO ma
him guilty Was not the law Of tn" casr.
Appellant was charged with selling
whisky aud the burden was on the S'ate
to prove this specific charge i'u'' as th're
is no evidence IN the record leniihS 10
show tia, defendant violated any other
provisions Of the local option law, Inc
error was harmless.
opinion hy Hurt, +. ].
C. c. HuTcHEsoN. vs.. TIVE STATE;
ronyiction for swindline, appealed from
Tarl3nt county Affirmed.
The evidence fully establishes the charge
in the indictment and there is no error
in the record.
opinion by Hurt, p j.
WALTER MILLER vs. THE STATE;
conviction for murder in the second d.-
gree appealed from Dallas county--Af-
firm ed.
l. Appellant complains that he was
mi,led Inv the CLERK into believing that
his CHALLENGES were exhausted, and thus
con poIlel to tccep; an Objectionable juror.
Appellant should have kept account Of
the number OF his Challenges, ana men
he would not have been mislei by the
clerk ..,-,,
~, ~, w. nf ~. 1rosecuting attorney
to the indictmou, was typewriter and
,,o, si,n,d Win nen and INK
4 A I'M Of exceptions should he suit
f..l1 al
%,'.,ig ~ 10 manifest the supposed
or,on,o,Is ruling Of thp court, otherwise
We viii presume that such rullns was
correct. The BIZ Of executions IN ihis case
Manipulating Of H. e" nai i o, n, tfe
a-nc9 IN, ,,i n' ~ the kiinag' Is deirient
In this respect and IAN not be consiierf4'
Al'SrtN JOHNSON VI. TIE SlAlf
ronvietion for manslnugh'er; nppealo
,,nr, Rurk county-An irmcd
,I,,,,s ,,,tiot for "A continuance
was properly refused ''he eV'''' 1.r.., ~,
p,r'er &C., '' ,,'a,oria1 noa iuoglne from the
was MOI MAJ In, 49,, a ,' t%,niin Mciton)
tNllen,e 81 .,c oyominii.g trial. she would
~ i,,.lro,,,, have t.stihoi o. stated IN
,hn h,nnIication If she had peen present NJ
the trial. .,.,. ASA, mo ey,denco
we 90 ho' I'M oi't" ia charge on man
S,a,,,'ht@r If did so charge. however. ana
sinut n.e'. fa,,,'d ,afendant guilty OF man
me ]lt! 'J ~, oan nnt complain therefore
,hat his spcclal cl arge oil this issue Was
re- u' ~, test,,cnv in this case is amrly
~, - hn,,n eonyicted thc appellant
~ ,,',,,der ana We are at a loss 10 under
stand WY M }9o W. s,S3nl1 eonefatula.c INN
s'tl,' on r. ,.,,l, Of INC trial
ser, on NY NV HENDERSON. j.
y VI BOUTWELL, We. THE STATE con.
vlc,iou for forgery; appeaiea rom ''"''
cotrty- AIN "'ou, 49,, q. .,no,,ions is
!. AlpeiiantS lis' p"' ~
too indefinite TO pe consul .a,,..
.. If the prosecuting hu"'"'S
objectionable remarks m ms areuln' ~, ~ ~
the Jury. appellant shohln NAY" iS''."
snccial charges ipslruetlhH iih jury l"
disregard such remarks o. l., ,,o
2 There was direct cohlliNt ~ Va.
evidence and the jury mas pecll"u ~
against defendant. We VIII not ul9tuFp '''o
vsrdic-
N'''''''' ~ ,n,,, s.,-.,rn.
FRANK IAFFERTY vs.. THE ST NCN
conviction for violation 81 th' t. ras oP-
ton law, apreh!od from farh'i Nu"i''
M. i,,,o,,,n,ion ohorres lint defendant
"' ~ 'Y' -. 1ohn pnrnes
sold the whisky 10 one '""' ,'"' .
l. The burden rested on ~" sun +"
nro,,e 4. snlo u, Barnes. and the oviGcncc
i,,,ycs il doubtful whether Tie snlo Was
a ssn ~ ''''''' ~
re-, ;rho chnr,-n uernits a conviction
whether the liuuor was sold 70 Barnes or
~ s,rnn QUO else. This was error
oniuion by Davidson, j.