The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-13
OPINION bv Davidson, j.
dismissed

o. P. JONES. from Hardeman--Appeal
dismissed
The recognizance in this case binds the
appellant tn abide the judgment of the
court of appeals" There is no such
court known 10 the laws of this state
Opinion by Davidson j.
PAUL HUNT from Jack; conviction for
witully disturbing a congregation as
semblcd for the purpose of religious
worship and conducting themselves in a
lawful manner-Appeal dismissed.
The rccogn2ance rccitcs that appellant
stands charged with the offense OF dds.
turning religious worship" 1t is fatally
defective in not stating the necessary
elements OF this offense. 1t is no ofrense
tc disturb religious worship-the offense
denounced is the disturbance of a congre-
cation assembled for religious worship
ana conduct themselves in n lawful man
ner.'
Opinion by Henderson, j.
NOODLE PRIEST, from Tarrant; con-
vietlon for simple assault--Reversed.
Tho only question is whether the evil
dcnce IL sufficient to sustain the convic-
tion. After II careful examination of the
facts we are Of tho opinion that 1t does
not.
Opinion by Henderson. ].
ALLEN HORTON, from wichita; convic-
Reversed.
lne court charged tho Jury. "If said
Stewart had assaulted the witness Henri
eta Butts, but the assault was over, and
the defendant cut said stewart out OF re-
Vcnge, then such cutting would not be
iustihable, aud his Suilt would be meas
ured by the intent that actuated his
mind" etc This charge Is assigned as
error The charge might he proper II
applicable to the facts in this caSe. The
testimony shows that after Stewart had
struck Henrietta Butts he reached for an
other brick, and while 50 reaching was
cut by appellant. We think that there Is
no evidence showing that the assault
| committed by Stewart on Henrietta Butts
| had ceased. In this attitude of the case,
| the charGe above was not called for. I
| was calculated to inJurc appellant Al
| though no exception was taken TO the
! charge nj tho time, II occurs to Ms That
under the circumstances of this case II
was calculated 20 prejudice the rights of
| the appellant before the jury.
| Opinion by Hurt, +. j.
f. JONES. from Wichita: conviction for
selling and disposing of mortgaged
property.
The State offered in evidence n mort
gage. Appellant objected TO its introduc-
| tom because the property was not suf-
! fcently described so that the same car
be Identified. 90 Because there Is u var
lance between the mortgage described w
the indictment. and the ono offered In
| evidence. In that the indictment describes
a mortgage covering a less number OF
articles than the mortgage offered In evi-
dence and that the property described
In the mortgage Is not the same property
described in the indictment. The court
ovorruled said objections. and appellant
reserved his bill. We think the property
sufficiently described. We do not think
that 1t is necessary TO set out the mort
gage according TO It's tenor. We think tho
indictment sufficient, II the mortgage
covered the articles set out in the IN
dictment, although It may contain othel
items there Is no variance. In regard 4
Tie third ground, appellant does not show
wherein the property described In the
mortgage Is not the same as described II
the Indictment. The charge OF the cour
submitted every phase OF the case raisct
by the testimony. There was no error II
| permittinc the State TO prove that Ger
tain authorizations used IN the mortsa
meant certain things. Appellant contend
THAT the punishment assessed by the tur!
~ not certain, In that the jury used tn
woid ''ieaIs" for years" We think tn
irtontion OF the jury In this matter .
| too pain for discussion.
opinion by Henderson. j.
, WILLIAM IASslTER. from Dallas
conviction for forging a deed.--Atfirm
ed.
The indictment sets out a deed perfec
! lin all its parts. but the same has nc
certificate OF Acknowledgment thereon