The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-06-26
Synopses of Opinions Handed Down
at the Latest Sitting.
OPINION IN THE WILLIAMS CASE
Suggestion ns to Charge on New,
Triai-Suprcmc Court Decides
Nights of IL Trustee.

i versed.
Aupellant stands convicted OF the muir
der OF |. h. Baker. The murder was COM
mitted in the city of Houston on the night
OF the 9th of May, 1896 The deceased
was killed in his residence by some person
who evidently entered the house for the
purpose OF committing burglary. The Kill
ing was not discovered until the morning
after 1t occurred and the only question
In the case is as TO the Identity OF appellant
| with he person who did the killing. Tho
| State offered testimony OF a circumstantial
character tending TO show that appellant
was the guilty party. and also offered in
| evidence the confessions OF appellant made
TO three different witnesses. Appellant in
troduced proof OF an alihi. and also denied
making the confessions. Tho evidence teids
TO shcw that the killing was done by
| person familiar with the internal arrange
| ment of the house where Baker lived, aud
| hy one who knew where the inmates Kept
| their Naluables. Appellant prior 10 the
killing had been a servant at the house.
| l. On the trial the State WAS permitted
| TO introduce two witnesses. Miss May
| White and II j. Simmons who testified
| 10 the details Of burglary of the house
of The deceased. committed on the nisht
| Of the 3lst Of March, 1896. about ono month
| nrior 10 the homicide. We presume the
! object of this testimony was to show that
/ the person committing said previous bur-
| glar, committed also the las, burglary aud
| homicide. The State contends that, al
! though II was 4 separate and distinct trans
action. vet it was admissible 10 show Gcn-
uty Chat is 10 amplifyl; hat the person
who cmmitted the first burglary showed
| a knowledge of the premises ana of The en-
| vironments, and that. the leieajsn. being
/ shown 10 have such knOwl 'ige ,.c likely
! committed said burglary; and, as ;he sec
ond burglary was committed in much the
same way As the first. that appellant Ia
| probably guilty OF the second burglary also.
To make evidence Of independent crimes
admissible the following coniitions must
| exist: ~ Sufficient evidence iinliit ating
the defendant in the case under rial must
| be first adduced (2) proof that the d, .c:id-
! ant was concerned in the commission O.
The extraneous crime must also Ia sd-
duced; t3l there must re sya;em e-t9b-
lished. between the offense on trili and
that introduced. to connect 1t with NE de-
tendaut.
Appellan, in this case is not ideutl'lel as
the perpetrator OF the burglary on The S1st
of March. 1t does net appear that any
witness saw him nor is it even suggested
that he was suspicioned of the prior | rr-
slary previous TO the nolnicile. rhe ad-
mission Of the evidence complained Of VS.
erroneous
>. What purported to lie a cory 81 a
voluntary statement Of teiendart, ~: ~ 10
Mahoney, Justice of the pea -, w?s IL
troduced in evidence against appellant. II
was shown that the original statement had
been given TO n grand juror ami mat 1t
was missing at the trial.
The showing made Was rot sufficient fer
the introduction Of this secondary oyi-
dence The name OF tue grand Juror TO
whom said paper WAS d.:hcre! is not els
closed nor is 1t shown that sail PAPER
was ever before the 2ranl jury. or ever
used in the grand jury ruD n. 1oa 'ogable
efforts should have been resorted 10 to
secure the original sta eme ". In order 10
satisfy this rule, all o. tho gran. Jurors
for the term should have been summoned
and questioned in ori,r 10 ascertain witch
one had received The pIper, whether it was
used In the grand jury rootl ANA what be
came Of 1t thereafter
s. In view of another trial We ST geest
that the evidence ~ mnljc> aforethourht
as furnished by the record Is based on
the idea that the homicide was committed
in the preparation NJ bursllry. The .curt
only gave the ordinary charge on express
and implied malice.
Opinion by Henderson. !.
CELESTE McAFEE. from Tarrant county;
conviction of bigamy- and dis
missed
The indictment charges: THAT Mrs.
Celeste McAfec In the county OF Tarrant,
and State Of Texas. on the 10th day Of Fob
ruary, 1897. did unlawfully marry Carl
Beauman, she. the said Mrs Celeste Nc
Afee. then and there having husband thon
living"
AN indictment for bigamy should dis
, unctly aver former marriage, II should
Allege the name of the former wife or MS
r band. ard the subsequent marriage on
4, which the prosecution is based, that is,
enough Of the former marriage should be
stated to appraise the defendant in general
terms OF the proof which viii he AL laced
by the State to establish same, In 10 far
as the case OF Watson VS.. state, 10 Ap. g.
is IN conflict with this opinion, il is merely
overruled
} Opinion by Henderson. J.
EL2IE lsHAM. from Tarrant county; con.
victioa OF cattle ;heftReyersed
J. Appellants defense on the trial was
that he purchased tho head OF cattle
charged TO have been stolen. lie testified
in support OF this defense as did also his
father and brother. The trial court chnrsed
the Jury that in passing on the conflicting
evidence in the case they might take into
, consideration the Intelligence, interest
apparent bias or prejudice, IL any, OF the
witnesses. as we'll as their manner OF tes-
ifvlng."
! This charge is upon the weight OF the
I testimony, and is fundamental error, and
can be taken advantage Of althou ii IL
was not excepted to or made ground In
the motion for new trial.
2 The owner OF the stolen heifcr was
permitted 10 testify that he had lost about
Twenty-Five head OF other cattle from his
ranch There was no evidence TO eonnect
APPELLANT with the loss OF these cattle. and
the admission Of the evidence was error.
Opinion by Hurt, =. j.
J IL, II. BRATT. from Clay county: coryic-
ZION of cattle theft-Anirmed.
!. The motion for a continuance does not
show diligence TO secure the attendance of
absent witnesses.
q Appellant complains that ne was COM
PEELED 10 select jury from panel OF
, only twenty-seyen men. He was only en-
utled 20 panel OF twenty four.
j. The evidence is sufficient, and there
was no error In the charge ~ ,ia .,,,r, K