The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-02-13

reasons y. Wnere the verdict has |
been decided by lot. or in any other manner
| than by fair expression OF opinion by the |
| Jurors"
Opinion by Henderson, j.
JOHN TURBEvILLE. from Archer; con-
| viction for playing cards In public |
| house-Reversed
| The indictment alleges the playing 10 |
| have been at a certain printing office The
| proof shows that In the day time the print
| ing Office was n public house. but there is
no proof whatever that II was used as n
public place at night, at which time the
game was played.
Opinion by Henderson, J.
]. p. RIIEA from Palo Pinto; conviction
for an aggravated assault-Aftirmed.
Appellant complains that the court al
lowed certain witnesses to testify that the
prosecuting witness. Witsell. had good
reputation for peace in the neighborhood
in which he lived The court explains that
this testimony was admitted OH the ground
that defendant proved that Witsell, pre-
vious to the difficulty, had made threats
against defendant. We think the testimony
admissible. The court charged the Jury
fully on the phases of the case presented
by the testimony
Opinion by Henderson, j.
j. II. SALMON, from Stephens: conviction
for disturbance OF the peace-Appeal
dismissed
The recognizance rectes that appellant
stands charged with the offense OF dis
turbing the peace. This Is not an offonse
go nomine hence the essential elements
! constituting such offense must be set out
in tho recognzance.
opinion by Henderson. j.
TATE SEALS. from Hunt; conviction for
violation Of local option law-Reversed.
The county attorney asked the prosecut-
ing witness II he did not testify before the
grand jury as follows: at was called gin
ger ale. tasted like mean whisky, would
} make a man drunk and sick" and then
J asked witness. lis it not fact that you
testified to that In the grand jury room,
and did you not consent to that in the
grand jury ROOM" Witness answered, Il
think that is what | testified to; think
enough Of that liquor would make man
drunk" Counsel for defendant objected
to the conduct of the county attorney in
reading from the record what Coffman. the
prosecutor, there stated. The county at
toiney had right to call the attention OF
the witne rs to his testimony for the pur-
pose of refreshing his memory. What he
stated in the grand jury room was not
5 evidence against the appellant In arguing
, the case to the jury the county attorney
referred TO this matter, whoreupon appel
liant requested the court to instruct the
jury that there was no testimony admitted
with reference to what the prosecuting wit
ness stated in the grand Jury room. and
you will not consider the statement OF the
: county attorney with reference to such
4 matters. The charge was refused and APP
tod Ify1In hn nj N.
r the charge should have been given.
: Opinion by Hurt. P. j.
]. NJ. BUCHANAN, from Grayson county
g the complainant charges appellant with
obstructing an alley In the city Of
h Whitesboro in violation of the city or',i-
I nance--Affirmed.
t Appellant was tried and convicted In the
mayors court and judgment rendered
against him In favor of the city of Whites
boro. He appealed to the county court ant
: filed an appeal bond which is made paya.
bic to the State of Texas. For this reason
C his appeal was dismissed in the county
: court and he appeals to this court. There
was no error in the action OF the countS
II court, because the appeal bond must 1T
# made payable to a party TO the suit. Tn,
State was not party to the suit.
@ Opinion by Davidson. ].
. EDWARD RiNES, Sr, from Montague
n conviction for carrying piston - Re
- versed.
The evidence is insufficient to suppor
the conviction.
Opinion by Hurt, p. J.
JOHN EDWARDS, from Harris; convic
N ton for an assault with intent to rape
w Affirmed.
tnnn
n the issues presented by the testimony an
the evidence showed the use Of such fore
-, as to establish the specific intent OF IN
:. appellant to have intercourse win IN
y" prosecutrix.
Opinion by Hurt. p. ].
O. f. TYRRELL, from Dallas; convictio
~ for violating local option law-Re
Versed.
1t is questionable whether the ginger al
was intoxicating liquor While appeiian
was a witness the county attorney ashe
him in regard to other sales OF whisk!
covering a period for several years paei
OF and over appellants objection proved Una
he had been indicted for selling nquo
49, without license, TO minors, and vioiatn
- the local option law in all fifty-slX time
IT This evidence was not admissible Tor an
ne purpose.
al opinion by Hurt, p. j.
or j. C. STEWART. from Young; convicuo
a. for violating local option law-Affirne'
Va APPELLANT offered to prove by sewers
he Witnesses that they had tried to buy wh'sH
from him and had failed TO do so. Tn
testimony was inadmissble and was proI
erly excluded The evidence is amply SUI
"a: flcient to support the verdict, 1t Is COZ
all tended that the court erred in refusing
reform the judgment and set aside the c.
he mulative judgment of imprisonment "
4, cause the same is unauthorized IN mlsu'
meanor cases In this there was no erro
10 because the statute specially provides Il
such cumulative punishment.
Opinion by Davidson j.
FOR I. G. STEWART. from Young. convicti'
Tor violating local option law-Aiiirnie
In The questions involved in this case
he tho same nc those in the case above e.