The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-02-02
DECISIONS BY HIGHER COURTS
corRT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS re-
VERSES A FORMER OPINION.
Relate. 10 Punishment which May
he Indicted by District Judges
In Contempt Proceedings.

Dallas. Texas, February 1.-The State
court of criminal appeals handed down
thirty opinions today, and had twenty-six
new cases submitted. Among the latter Is
death penalty for rape from Hill county
ana n ,ifc scntence for wife murder from
| Victoria.
| In the decisions rendered today the
case of r. v. smith, from Waco, was az
hrmcd Smith is alleged to have written
note to juror In a case ON trial IN waco
| to this effect and tenor: For 9oa sake
hold out for my friend" meaning the de-
PENDANT The Juror turned the note In 70
court. ard his honor fined Mr.. Smith SluV
and gave him forty eight hours IN jan 10,
contempt The upper court today ueciineu
TO disturb the Judgment OF the waco cou...
In March, 1896, Major Jerome &. hearpy
of Dallas. one OF the biggest criminal law
yors OF the State was sent to jail for con-
tempt OF court in engaging in court room
alteration. The commitment order OF
Judge Clint was much like that employed
by Judge Scott In ordering Smith conhned
The upper court reversed Judge Clint 8
ruling and ordered Koarby released. since
then, it Ia said, Texas Judges have been
Mt a loss to know what contempt OF court
meant. The decision in Smiths case prac-
tcally reverses Judge Hurts opinion In
the Kearby case.
Liquor Dealers Liability.
Fort Worth, Texas. January I.--An
opinion seriously affecting the interests OF
liquor dealers has just been handed down
by the court of civil appeals. The opinion
is by Chief Justice Conner and covers
eight pages of typewriter matter. The
point in issue was the liability of sureties
on retail liquor dealers bond for dam
ages to an aggrievcd wife who prior to the
execution of tho bond had given notice In
writing to the liquor dealer not to sell
liquor to her husband. Sarah Hahn sued
Blair Bros. OF this city and the sureties on
their retail liquor dealers bond for statu-
tory damages On June II, 1885, defendants
applied for a license to the county clerk OF
Tarrant county for permit to sell liquor at
1d15 jennings avenue in this city, and
executed at the same time the statutory
bond in the sum OF $4,000 with approved
surcties. On February T. 1896, and prior to
the execution of tho bond. Sarah Hahn no.
tilted Blair Bros. in manner and form pre-
scribed by law not to sell her husband
any whisky or beer. A breach Of the cond-
lions OF tho bond was alleged and proven
to have happened on December 8, 1896, and
Judgment was rendered in favor of the ag-
grieved wife against the principals and
suretios on tho bond in the sum OF $500.
The single question submitted for deter
minatton on appeal was the liability of the
sureties where tho written statutory notice
was given the principal prior to the execu-
ton OF the bond, the breach of the condi-
ton OF which occurred during the life of
such bond. This question was answered
in favor OF the wife. fixing tho liability OF
the sureties on the bond. The court held
that the notice given was sufficient to
designate the husband as one of tho class
over which the law throws it's protecting
mantle. The essence of the fault" said
tho court, is the fact of a sale of intoxi-
eating liquor to person occupying the
prohibited status and In such case II is
lmmaterial whether such status be fixed
by the determination of years tho person
may have lived, by his habits of sobriety.
by his attendance as student in an in
stitution of learning. or by the wife,
mother, sister or daughter so designating
him by written notice duly served. The
statute nowhere provides for more than
one notice nor fixes the time as related to
the execution OF the bond when such no
tice shall No given. nor is time fixed be
yond which such notice becomes non effec-
tive or imperative"