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

|
be considered
In the absence Of the statement Of facts.
the presumption is that the Judgment Of
the court below was correct.
Opinion by Davidson, ].
JOHN C. STEPHENS. from MONTAGUE 1.-TWO
casesl; conviction for forsery-Reversed |
and refnanded
Motion In arrest OF Judgment was made |
because of variance between the purrort |
and tenor clauses OF said Indictment. The |
purport clause shows that the alleged |
forged instrument was the act OF j. T.
Holman. whereas the tenor clause shows
" to be the &C, OF ]. G. stephens, A. j.
Hagler. j. 7. Holman. G. f. Green and
David stephens. THIS variance is fatal
Opinion by Davidson. j.
A. r. HALL, from Tarrant; conviction for
asgravated assault Reversed and dis
missed.
The indictment In this case was present
ed to the district court of Harris county
on September IS. and was certified to the
county court on the LIST OF October there
after. The indictment charged the offensc
to have been committed on the 10th day
OF October. nearly month after the pre-
sentiment of the Indictment For the error
Indicated. Judgment reversed and prosecu-
tioii dismissed
Opinion by Davidson. J.
c. c. WRIGHT. from Cooke. conviction for
cattle theft-Aflirmed.
The statement OF facts can not be con-
sidered. because not approved by the judge.
| There was no error In the court receiving
proof after both parties had closed thor
testimony. We do not know whether the
a.st
! not. In the absence Of a statement of facts
| we can not assume that the testimony
presented certain defense and reverse the
| judgment because the court did not charge
| thereon.
| Opinion by Davidson. j.
ELMER JONES. from Cooke; conviction
for murder. five years. Affirmed.
The transcript does not coaiain state
ment Of facts. The charge o. the court ap.
pears to be correct. aud the judgment is
| afiirmed.
Opinion by Hurt, p. J.
SAM FRESHMAN. from Rockwall; convlc-
ton for violating the local option law
Reversed
The testimony shows chat a stranger APP
preached Parker ard others. who were
working at a gin In Rockwall and took their
order for a gallon of whisky, for which
they agreed 10 pay three dollars. He rep
resented himself the agent of the APP
reliant. They agreed to buy the whisky and
pay for Ii C.. O. D., and pay the express
charges. On the first Of December the tua
was taken out of the express office at
Rockwal; for which 50 40 was paid.
Parker and others drank the whisky These
parties never saw appellant until after the
institution of this prosecution. II 1t be
| l,l hat, e.t, Nrhn
order was Frcshman's agent, and that
Freshman filled the order and expressed the
liuuOr on the terms agreed upon, thon the
question arises whether IL was sale II
Dallas. the point Of shipment, or al Rock
vail the place of consignment. We hol'
that whore there was 10 such special con
tract between the parties, but a mere or
der by purchaser to seller 10 ship intox
icating liquors or goods C. o. D., the sal
is complete at the point of shipment.
Opinion by Davidson. j.
j. L. DUFFER. from Eastland; conviction
for violating the local option law -hppea
dismissed
The recognizance recitcs that appellin
; did unlawfully sell intoxicating liquor in
county where local option has been adopt
the constituent clements Of such uifens'
and renders the recognizance fatally de
, fective.
Opinion by Davidson. J.
ROBERT MARROW. from Erath' convc
tion for simple assault-Appeal dis
missed.
The record contains no notice OF appea
Judgment of conviction or complaint.
Motion is made ny the State for certorar
to corlplete the record as TO the complain
This motion can not be granted, beclus
this court has not acquired jurisdiction {
t the case. on account of notice OF appeo
not appearing in the record
Opinion by Davidson, j.
ED MORTON. from Hunt; conviction fo
:. violating the local option law-Aftirrne'
The State introduced no evid ,nce as ,
o the local option election being held, TIL
Il defendant in his testimony in erect nd
mittcd that local option was in force
G said precinct when the sale occurred.
9 bar to this prosecution, appellant p'oade
c former aoauittal. alleging that this wa
| the same transaction of which he had bee
previously acquitted He introduced Il
proof, however. upon this point. except h
II complaint informati0n trial verdict an
: Judgment in the former case. This is M
sufiIclent. 1t is insisted that the verde
. is not supported by the evidence. we thin
T.. IL ia.
II opinion by Hurt, =. ].
:. GUS JACKSON. from Dallas; conviction IL
burglary-Afiirmed.
It Appellant filed what is termed plea
II jeopardy This plea contains defectiN
g Indictment and 1t alleges that the cou'
., after the parties had announced ready Il
trial and during the investigation OF I.
case. permitted the county attorney to di
miss the prosecution for the reason that II
m Indictment was defective. This plea va
A stricken out by the court on molten OF u
county attorney There was no error
II this. An accused is never IN Jeopardy vi
" der defective Indictment
is Opinion by Hurt. +. j.
. CAM TUCKER. from Collin; conviction I
an assault and battery Appeal dismisse
TO The recognizance does not require a
l. pellant to abide the judgment of tho eou
y of criminal appeals OF the state OF Tex
D "in this case" This is necessary
IT. Opinion by Hurt p. j.
or
ANDREW JOHNSON. from Tarrant; co
yicticn for malicious MISUNDERSTANDING