The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-12

CUSTOM DAILY POS1
Rage and 90 remained until after the
ceremony, the marital contrac, being a
civil one. 1t would be void. There ecins
no statement Of facts in the record as IRE
sented to us. there was no error in retus.
ing the charge. Affirmed.
or.nion by Hurt. +. J.
WILL HAYS vs. STATE. from Dallas
conviction OF burglary and given three
yea. s-Anirmed.
rhe charge OF the court vas correct ard
did not place the burden Of proving IN
pocence upon defendant nor improperly as
sumo the pistol TO be the property 81 tiisa q.
beth johnson. While the court Ia terms Old
moi give q charge on recent possession ani
explanation. he did better and authorized
the jury 10 acuuit IL they believed the de-
PENDANT bought the pistol or II they had
a reasonable doubt concerning the matter.
There was no error in permitting evidence
in regard to the theft Of the proIrrty and
| specifying the articles taken al the time
| Of the burglary. Affirmed.
Opinion by Henderson. J.
NJ. HARDCASTLE VS. STATE, from pai-
I las. conviction OF murder In the second
degree and given tbirty-hve years-Af-
armed.
The charge upon insulting language asd
/ coaduc, toward the wife OF the defendant
~as not necessary under The circumstances.
but II vas no, Injurious TO the defendant.
/ It properly submitted this circumstance 10
assist the jury in determining as 20 eS-
press Or implied malice 10 reduce the haTni-
CHE from murder In the irSt 10 the second
degree. ThsVe was no error in falling 20
charge on marslaughter based on d-nun-
Citations Of defendant ty decea sed while IN
the saloon as his testimony shows that
he shot Tor different cause. and me sAoet-
iDe Occurred some tine after TITS occur
rerce in the saloon. and there was no eS-
tihiifou q p1Ssica az the time though de-
H. ndAu; heard what Was said IL the saloon.
TIE court gave fun charge upoa r.
6eicnsc. which issue IS raised ~ testimony
Of defendant. The facts proven sustain me
jury in finding murder in the secsnd de-
gree Judgment affirmed.
opinion by Henderson J.
EX PARTE II II. LEWIS, from Harris
Reversed
Appellant Charles Fisher. and r. L.
Thrash we're charged wish he murder Of
Lilly jarvis by administering poison and
zppci.an, held in hail IN me sum o. $1,000.
Her cenient{cn being that said amount is
excessive she being poor and all her
i-ltn being poor we think the evidence
sEstairs her contru,icus The Judgment is
reversed and hail fixed at 5000
0ri-ion by Hurt J
SMITH vs. STATE. from Coleman; con
tiction Cor assault wlth. intent TO KIN
AID given Two years lie 'ersed aad re-
uaad !
The charge correctly gives the law on
assault TO murder but fails TO charge on
asgrayatsd assault and battery. Ne think
he evidence would have justified the jury
10 finding appellant guilty Of aggravated
asFauit. therefore defendant was entitled
10 such charge. The cause is reversed and
rcmAnded
Opinion by Davidson, J.
RUFFlN rs. STATE from Colorado, con-
viction for bribery and given two years
Reversed and remanded
HELD that the Indictment is sufficient
The court erred IN falling to charge tina.
Stockbrdge was an aecompiice The evil
deuce fails 10 show that The appellant was
10 receive any Of the money paid for his
o~n use, but for the purpose Of paying 10
another to Influence such Others vote
Therefore We think the evidence fails 10
sustain conviction. Reversed and re-
mardCd
Opinion by Henderson. J.
DAVIS VS. State, from Dallas; conviction
for seduction and given four years-Iie
verscd and remanded.
The court erred in refusing appellant
the right to prove BY Walter Scott Scott
Baldwin and Gus Peyton that each had hal
carnai intercourse with the prosecutriX
for The purpose OF contradicting the prose
cuirk and also showing the character Of
vi ala nf pa
iusing 10 allow the defendant to ask the
II she had carual intercours
with Walter Scott on different occasions,
for the purpose OF laying a predicate FOR
the impeachment Of the witness. The court
charged II they 1.-THE jury believed beyond
a reasonable doubt that III rrosecutliA
had bad intercourse with other men since
October 1885 ,the time OF the alleged AZ
ductionl, that they could then oalY look
TO such acts OF carual intercourse since
October for tbs purpose Of Assisting them
Ia determining the weight 20 b. alta ,hed
TO her evidence as u witness Al tho evil
dence relating 20 carnal intercourse with
other men having been excluded 1t was
error 10 charge the jury in regard to si,.n
excluded testimony. The court also erred IN
hat part of It's charge limiting the ef
feet II certain letters shown 20 have been
written by The prosecutrix. For the errors
shown the cause Is reversed and remandeI
'piAlOn ny baNiusoh j.
HANKS VS.. STATE from Harris; conv,c-
ton for assault with intent Ia rape a
girl under the age OF IL years and given
iYe Affirmed
on the authority Of the case OF Hamilton
vs. the state. decided at the present term,
IN which the same questions are Involved.
this case Is affirmed
Opigion by Davidson j.
VS.. STATE. from Bexar; con
yicuon for burglary Affirmed.
Because there was no charge asked r..
luiting the Jury 10 disregard the remar6s
1l the district attorney we find no orro,.
We find no error IN the charge VITA refer
nnce to the Intent VITA which the defeud
ant entered the house. and tho force which
he made the entry, The evidence is sufii-
eieut and the judgment Is affirmed
Opinion by Davidson, J.
IsAACs vs., STATE from HaI demhn; con-
yiction Tor murder In the FRS degree
ara given a life Affirmed.
The evidence is sufficient to show that