The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-14

ppre CRIMINAL APPEALS
u.,,ry wright G'V''
~. Year. for Rnpe :"
p,d co'a'" A'"'A''
,su, Nay il.-r Follow, g. ar ar
a, opinions delivered by TN
tsin,l appeals today. .,,,,,,
.rny from Medina county
, 7, pa,,strueiing a public road
...,,oD Of the rosd alleged II
',.,r,c,ed was on appellant
a.. VAS evidence tending t'
-. never cut out and opened
.I.,,ousrs court, and that /
! ,Iree the filing of the In
~. case. The court erred II
.' ~. The issue made by this
A. hry. as requested by th'
srs. ,oss no, show condemna
~, as the law requires.
v henderson, j.
rs,~oN. from Bell county
- III passing as true a forseo
!, Ia pcte-Reversed.
nm was alleged to be Of the
nv. Knowles. Appellant pos
~. genuine notes executed by
,saiing to his evidence, he
Il IA Knowhs that these notes
]. M, whepupon Knowles eA-
:, ms The original notes were
M, but had been negotiated
s. 10 rebu, this evidence the
: Flowed to prove several other
icrseries committed by APP
,.ns similar to that pursued
As case. These other forgories
xul,ej, some of them. prior 10
- ,lssed In this case, aud others
es here charged
siacay was competent not be-
b S.sr oifenses shown were con
Ia, with the one here charged
~ they were part of tho same
rs as the one here alleged. but
shFed or tended to show that
y. idopted the same plan TO Ut =
n i,aruments In other cases as
syi 10 have pursued in this case.
Wet the signature OF j. NJ d.
+ tie note in question WIS gen
siNd, was a material issue on
After being shown the alleged
se, Knowles was permitted TO
i,ne on a piece of paper, which
sel 10 80 to the jury as evidence
he mentioned.
gtnn Of the court was erroneous.
v;eient to prove hand writing by
~, aud the comparison need not
t,s signatures Of the party irrW-
! he case for other purposes. Cart.
p But the signature must be
b 1--we been made at Il time and
fEa circumstances as that the party
Hkhd no motive for Disgusting his
wing The direct contrary is shown
". !Ae case with the signature
Es! tas
Pa y Henderson, ].
n sSlERS, from Mills county.
FNaM IN assault with intent to
Ninal dismissed.
aa' BY motion and affidavits. IN
4 sr that appellant has escaped
e1zI lending this appeal. and that
w I'll has been for more than ten
gay.
lz b Davidson, ].
!. nlSSON, alias vlNsoN. from
!, ! sshly' conviction for burglary
y an similar to those stated
''S case of Perry Sanders.
's'T Davidson. j.
LINES from Falls county; con.
~ 'aeit Of a Affirmed.
p'taded former jeopardy. The
: s4'aed 10 show that he had stolen
- IRON a pasture at the same
- u'ed and convicted for steal
'ne mules before this case
!, ! %ia a motion for a new trial
IL mat case when this trial
'''ee the trial in this case the
! new trial in the other case
Htnted. vast
ssg,eilants duty and right 10
s.,s. ~. mentioned case finally dis.
t5 solhs into the trial OF this
u. ,. ust ask thsl this should he
= Nial N case disposes of the
b ",ee'ay' VI course In the new
e,,s,, '-ei case appellant can set
'a IN TINS case II he desires
ice 1. e, Is sufficient.
Z" Henderson, j.
,oS :. from Coleman county.
49,. w morse Affirmed.
why aid not err In refusing the
>. .'a''nuance. 1t does not show
i'nony. 8'''s Oh The pro
' !, y. corroborated. 'u'-
" Henderson. j.
u d ior IT.. from IN Coleman county,
;, W. "Ofse theft Affirmed.
-" Nv ao' err in excluding the
!. 'ls witness, Luke cathay. I,s
- not shown.
, ! Is sufficient.
y Henderson. J.
clio, LEI asl from Harrison coun
!, . 'Or ourslary-Affirmed.
tho , au'h'ng in the record to
o,, 'Our, tried this case out OF
!, S'a :, The mere statemon, IN
I, ~ Tue motion for a new tr,a,
n. ''' IN the absence Of a hi,
- no bill ~