The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-10-30

defendant was armed two or three hours
before the assault, his remarks being also
shown explaining his reasons for having
said gun. Appellants motion for new
trial on the grounde OF newly discovered
evidence does not appear TO be we'll taken;
said application utterly fails to show any
diligence.
Opinion by Hurt. r. 3.
JOE HoFEMoN. from Bexar: conviction
for theft Of Unconstitutional.
This not being capital case, It was not
required that counsel be appointed for de-
fendant; the evidence was amply sufficient
TO sustain the conviction. There IL nothing
In the record showing TINT continuance
Yves asked and refused for the want OF the
testimony OF tho absent witness. The In
dictmcnt laying the offenso In Bexar was
sufficient. the proof showing That although
the horses were taken in Bell county they
were carried into Bexar and there dis
posed OF.
opinion by Davidson. J.
A. NJ. HOOPER. from Nacogdochcs; con-
viction for slander--Reversed and re-
handed.
This case was tried on the 9th day Of
April. resulting IN a mistrial: the Jury was
discharged without an adjudication OF the
reasons for such discharge. on a suhsc-
Qucnt trial plea OF former jeopardy was
interposcd by defendant, which was demur-
red to by the county attorney, such plea
being sustained by the court The question
now is upon the sufficicncy OF such plea.
Hold: That said plea was sufficient and II
the facts therein stated are true the APP
pellant was In jeopardy, For the reasons
given the CAGE is reversed and romanded.
Opinion by Hurt. 7. ].
AUGUST HUNTER. from Dallas, convic-
ton for burglary
The Indictment charged burglary by en-
tering certain school building belonging
to the city OF Dallas for the purpose OF
stealing property belonging to ono Spivcy.
The proof showed that the said Spivey
was janitor OF eaid building and had ex-
elusive control from o'clock p. m. TO 8
o'clock next morning, and that certain
books belonging TO pupils were taken and
that the entry was made al night The
court charged the jury as follows "a per-
son who has the direct control OF house
and exclusive MANAGEMENT and control Of
property is. for the purposes OF law. the
occupant OF such house and owner or such
property" and IN this the court was cor
rect. There was no error In permitting the
Witness Jones, to detail statements made
by the appellant and his CO. defendant on
the morning after such theft. as they were
together when such statement was made.
There was no error In the charge on ac-
complete testimony
Opinion by Davidson, ].
WASH WHITE, from Travis: conviction
for murder IN the fret degree and pun
ishment fixed at life IN The penltsntlary
Affirmed.
Appellant contends that the Indictment
Is insufficient because II omite the word
express" from the expression malice
aforethought." This Indictment has been
repeatedly held 10 be sufficient. There Ia
no statement OF facts in the record and the
charge is sufficient under the indictment.
Opinion by Davidson, J.
HENRY TAYLOR, from ko,nrtson; con-
yctlon for an assault with intent to
murder--Affrmed
The only question or Importance sug-
gested by the record is whether or not the
arrest OF defendants witness. Ananlas Car
ter. for perjury, after leaving the witness
stand was conducted In such a manner aa
TO prejudice defendant before the jury.
From the statement Of the trial judge aG
TO the manner OF such arrest we do not
think 1t was calculated TO In any way preJu-
dice Defendants case.
Opinion by Hurt, T., j.
FRANK SPR0DLING, from Hopkins; con-
yiction for theft Of hogs-Affirmed,
We think that the charge WAS amply
sufficient In defining who are principals
and also IN charging that unless they
should belisse that defendant was a prin-
cipal they should acqnit The evidence IL
sufficient.
Opinion by Hurt. 7. J.
DuLE PORTER. from Shelby; conviction
for disturbing religious worship--Af-
firmed.
There arr no bills OF exceptions IN the
record and the motion for q new trial
besed on newly discovered evidence Is not
In compliance with the law, no affidavits
accompanying same. The evidence 10 suf-
flcient
JOHN c. STROM, from Bswie This is an
appeal from the county court from a con-
viction for disturb nee Of the peace, and
the renognizance recltes that the defend
ant Stands charged In the county court
with the offense of disturbing the peace
Appeal dismissed.
Held That disturbing the peace is not
an offense go noniree. known to our law;
In or1eer to reclte the offense In the recog-
niaance lie essential elements should have
been stated; because said rocognizance ID
insufficient the appeal Is dismissed.
opinion by Henderson, j.
CAL GULL. from Rains-Appeal dis.
missed.
This appeal is dsmiseed because the
recoenizance requires the appellant to
l,abide the action Of the court Of appeals in
stead Of the courf OF criminal appeals.
Opinion by Davidson. ].
Ex PARTE FRANK FREELAND. from
Dewitt: appellant was convicted In the
city court OF Yoskuin and sued out n
writ OF habeas corpus before the county
judge and was remapded by him--Af-
firmed.
The conviction was under an ordinance
making It an offense for two or more per-
Sons to fight together In public place In
the city or Yoakum; that n, the ordinances