Volume 78 — Texas Criminal Reports

Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Scott. Appeal from a conviction of theft from the person; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of defendant’s confession: Wood v. State, 22 Texas Crim.

<p>1. — Murder—Suspended Sentence — Manslaughter.</p> <p>The statute in reference to suspended sentence does not apply to murder, it being excepted out of the provisions of that law, and where the court did not submit manslaughter, there was no error in. failing to submit the suspended sentence law to the jury.</p> <p>2. — Same—Evidence—General Reputation — Suspended Sentence.</p> <p>^here, upon trial of murder, the State introduced evidence attacking the reputation of the defendant on the theory that he had filed a plea for suspended sentence, but the court did not submit this issue, and the defendant had intro-, duced no evidence as to his general reputation, this was error.</p> <p>3. — Same—Charge of Court — Negligent Homicide.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence raised the issue of negligent homicide, the court erred m his failure to submit the same to the jury.</p> <p>4. —Same—Charge of Court — Deadly Weapon.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence did not show that the instrument used was necessarily a deadly weapon, the court should have submitted a charge on this issue under article 1147, Penal Code, as to the means and character of instrument used.</p> <p>5. — Same—Charge of Court — Manslaughter—Intent to Kill.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the theory of the State was that the defendant had the ulterior purpose of killing, while that of the defendant was that there was no such intent, but the evidence showed lying in wait, etc., there was no error in the court’s failure to charge on manslaughter. Davidson, Judge, dis-. seating.</p> <p>6. — Same—Evidence—Dying Declarations — Interpreter—Predicate.</p> <p>Where the testimony as to the dying declarations were interpreted from’ the Spanish into the English language to the witnesses, who testified thereto, and the said interpreter was not sworn, the same was not original testimony as to said dying declarations, as said witnesses did not understand what occurred between them and the alleged interpreter, and such testimony was not admissible; besides, it was questionable whether sufficient predicate had been laid.</p> <p>7. — Same—Predicate—Dying Declarations — Rule Stated.</p> <p>The State must show that the declarant was under the immediate apprehension of death, and it is not sufficient that he believed he was going to die, when the wounds were not necessarily fatal. Eollowing Edmondson, v. State, 41 Texas, 500, and other eases. <■</p> <p>8. — Same—Rule Stated — Predicate.</p> <p>A sufficient predicate is not shown where the only statement of the deceased indicating approaching death was a statement that he believed he was fatally shot. Eollowing Craven v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 78.</p> <p>9. — Same—Rule Stated — Approaching Death — Predicate.</p> <p>The predicate for a dying declaration is insufficient if the proof fails tc establish the fact that declarant, at the time of making the declaration, was conscious of approaching death, and believed that there was no hope of recovery. Eollowing Ledbetter v. State, 23 Texas Crim.'App., 256, and other cases.</p> <p>10. — Same—Evidence Hearsay — Co-conspirators.</p> <p>Upon trial of murder the acts, conduct, words, and statements of co-conspirators, after the completion of the conspiracy, can not be used against the other parties to the transaction when they were not present, and did not hear it. Following Cox v. State, 8 Texas Crim, App., 254. Neither were the declarations of the officers, not made in defendant’s presence, admissible.</p>

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Nelson Lytle.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of swindling; penalty, a fine of $25 and sixty days confinement in the county jail.</p> <p>The opinion states the ease.</p> <p>On question of insufficiency of information: Curtis v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Bep., 39; Mathena v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 473.</p> <p>On question of sufficiency of the information: Arnold v. State 76 Texas Crim. Bep,, 512.</p>

Tried below before the Eon. E. E. Bozeman. Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $50 and two days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below Before the. Hon. W. M. Tidwell.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of gaming; penalty, a fine of $10.</p> <p>The opinion states the ease.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. Frank S. Boberts. Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of insufficiency of the indictment: Whitmire v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Bep., 475, 156 S. W. Bep., 1179; Simms v. State, 22 S. W. Bep., 876. Cited 'Crayton v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Bep., 84.

<p>‘Carrying Fistol —Statement of Facts — County Court — Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Where the record contained no order authorizing the filing of the purported statement of facts and hills of exceptions, and the same were filed after the adjournment of the County Court, the same can not he considered on appeal, although filed within twenty days after adjournment.</p>

Tried below before tbe Hon. John F. Prince. Appeal from a conviction of assault to murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in tbe penitentiary. Tbe opinion states tbe case. On question of insufficiency of tbe evidence : Hammons v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 445; Beyes v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Bep., 346. On question of other offenses: Welhausen v. State, 18 S. W. Bep., 300; Haney v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Bep., 156, 122 S. W. Bep., 34.

Tried below before the Hon. Ben H. Denton. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory; penalty, two years confinement in tbe penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Fitch v. State', 127 S. W. Bep., 1040; Mizell v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Bep., 226, 128 S. W. Bep., 125; Bluman v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Bep., 43. Cited Jones v. State, 174 S. W. Bep., 1071.

<p>Gaming — Sufficiency of the Evidence- — Private Residence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of playing, betting, and wagering, at a game of cards not at a private residence, occupied by a family, tlie evidence showed that the gaming took place in a box car, 250 feet distant of a ear occupied by the section boss and his family, and that all the .participants in the play were unmarried, except one, whose wife was in Mexico, and that they ate, slept and had tlieir meals prepared in said ear, the same was not a private residence, although the said ear in which the playing took place was under the control of the section boss.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. John S. Prince. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of charge of court: Cartwright v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 473; Francis v. State, 55 S. W. Kep., 488; Stacy v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 95.

Tried below before the Hon. Jesse M. Brown. Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of $100. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. J. A. Ward, sitting in exchange. Appeal from a conviction of theft of cattle; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Eobt. B. Seay.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, a fine of $100 and one ■day confinement in the county jail.</p> <p>The opinion states the ease.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. H. 0. Norwood. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully riding on a railroad pass; penalty, a fine of $100 and thirty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. On question of moral turpitude: Bogus v. State, 114 S. W. Rep., 823; Hanks v. State, 117 S. W. Rep., 150; Winn v State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 538; Spiller v. State, 61 id., 566; Brown v. State, 56 id., 392; White v. State, 57 id., 196.

<p>1. — Desertion—Wife and Child — Information.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of deserting wife and child, the information followed approved precedent, the same was sufficient.</p> <p>2. — Same—Statutes Construed.</p> <p>Section 1 of chapter 101, Acts of Thirty-third Legislature, not only makes, it an offense to desert the child, but to neglect or refuse to provide for the same, and the contention that the child was born? after defendant deserted his, wife, was no defense.</p> <p>3. — Same—Preparation for Trial — Waiver—Two Days for Pleading.</p> <p>Where appellant contended that he was placed on trial in less than two days after the .complaint and information were filed, bnt the record disclosed that appellant failed to call the trial court’s attention to his motion to postpone, but that he had informed the county attorney that he would be ready for trial as soon as his plea of former acquittal was prepared, and that he proceeded to trial, his acts and conduct amounted to a waiver.</p> <p>4. — Same—Former Acquittal — Impossible Date — Void Information.</p> <p>Where the information and the first complaint charged an impossible date, nnd upon which defendant was acquitted, there was no error in the court overruling the plea of former acquittal based, thereon.</p> <p>[Rehearing denied November 10, 1915. — Reporter.]</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Trinity. Tried below before the Hon. S. W. Dean.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, one year confinement in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of court’s charge and objections thereto: Schoenerstehdt v. State, 117 S. W. Rep., 829.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. S. W. Dean. Appeal from a conviction of rape on a female under the age of consent; penalty, death. The opinion states the case. On question of confession: Henzer v. State, 137 S. W. Rep., 1141; Harris v. State, 144 S. W. Rep., 232; Campbell v. State, 141 S. W. Rep., 334.

<p>' Appeal from the District Court of San Augustine. Tried below before the Hon. A. E. Davis.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of rape on a female under the age of consent; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Matagorda. Tried below before the ITon. Thomas B. Lewis, Special Judge.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of insufficiency of information. Hammonds v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 4(35.</p> <p>On question of jurisdiction: Stewart v. State, 33 S. W. Bep., 1081. On question of conflict of law: Ex parte Elliott, 72- S. W. Bep., 837 ; Lewis v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Bep., 351, 127 S. W. Bep., 808.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. Frank S. Roberts. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, fifteen years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of admitting declarations of third parties: Cooper y. State, 23 Texas, 331; Dill v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 193. On question of court’s charge on self-defense: Mahew v. State, 144 S. W. Rep., 230; Rice v. State, 61 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. Nelson Lytle. Appeal from a conviction of having in defendant’s possession for the purpose of sale, etc., the hide of a wild deer; penalty, a fine of $75.

Tried below before the Hon. Frank W. Freeman. Appeal from a conviction of keeping a disorderly house; penalty, a fine of $300 and twenty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. On question'of sufficiency of the evidence: Wilson v. State, 136 S. W. Eep., 447.

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. W. L. Crawford.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to rape; penalty, five years confinement in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the ease.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. T. W. McBride. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a ■fine of $100. The opinion states the case. On question of charge of court: Hatch-ings v. State, 142 S. W. Bep., 1154. On question of riminal intent: Coffee v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., ■548; Lann v. State, 25 id., 495; Jones v. State, 10 id., 552. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Hon. Oscar Frink. Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $50 and thirty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the ease.

Tried below before the Hon. S. W. Dean. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of sufficiency of the evidence: Burnett v. State, 62 S. W. Rep., 1063.

<p>local Option — Bill of Exceptions — Statement of Eacts.</p> <p>Where the bill of exceptions and statement of facts were not filed within twenty days, according to the order of court, and no reason was shown why this was not done, an allegation in the motion for new trial of the insufficiency <af the evidence, can not be considered in an appeal from the County Court.</p>

<p>1. — Carrying Pistol — Information—Date of Piling — Date of Offense.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the alleged date of the offense and the filing of the information showed that the date alleged when the offense was committed is anterior to the filing of the information, there was no error in overruling a motion in arrest of judgment. 'Following Wilson v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 150, and other cases.</p> <p>2. — Same—Information—Venue—Then and There.</p> <p>Where the Information alleged that the county attorney, alleging the county and the date, presented in the County Court, etc., the words “then and there” relate back to the allegation of venue, and there wás no error on this ground. Following Moreno v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Hep., 660, and other cases.</p> <p>3. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>4. — Same—Practice—Date of Offense — Former Conviction.</p> <p>In the absence of any objection to the introduction of testimony, that- defendant carried a pistol on two different dates, the' defendant could not take advantage thereof after verdict; besides, in the event of another prosecution, this judgment could be pleaded in bar</p> <p>5. — Same—Statement of Facts — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>In the absence of a statement of facts, other questions raised can not be rer viewed on appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Hon, E. W. Nicholson. ■</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment m the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On cross-examination of wife: Greenwood v. State, 35 Texas, 587; Stewart v. State, 106 S. W. Kep., 685; Hobbs v. State, 113 S. W. Kep., 308; Yeirel v. State, 119 S. W. Kep., 848; Johnson v. State, 16.3 S. W. Kep., 513.</p> <p>On question of striking out testimony: Hall v. State, 106 S. W.. Kep., 339.</p>

<p>Ttobbery — Misconduct of Jury — Allusion to Defendant’s Failure to Testify.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of robbery, the defendant, in his motion for new trial, ■contended that the jurors alluded to defendant’s failure to testify, but the record showed that such reference was only incidental, and could not have influenced the jury, there was no reversible error, the evidence being sufficient to sustain the conviction. Following Cooper v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 267; 162 S. W. Rep., 368.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. J. A. Ward. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of intent: Floyd v. State, 18 S. W. Rep., 819; Trimble v. State, 125 S. W. Rep., 40.

Tried below before the Hon. John S. Prince. Appeal from a conviction of rape; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Tried below before the Hon. Hugh L. Umphres, Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the.case. On question of challenge of jurors: Gilmore v. State, 38 S. W. Bep., 787; Sessions v. State, 38 S. W. Bep., 605; Shannon v. State, 28 S. W. Bep., 540; Willis v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 297; Jacobs v. State, 9 Texas Crim.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Houston. Tried below before the Hon. John S. Prince.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of ejecting trespasser: Dodson v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Kep., 571; Nix v. State, 45 id., 504; Morrison v. State, 40 S. W. Rep., 591; McMillan, v. State, 165 S. W. Rep., 576; Graves v. State, 124 S. W. Rep., 676; ■Willis v. State, 75 S. W. Rep., 790.</p> <p>On question of newly discovered evidence: Roy v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 369; Ford v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 1; Lindsey v. State, 50 id., 435; Sebastian v. State, 39 S. W. Rep., 680.</p> <p>On question of court’s charge on self-defense and defendant’s right of going armed: Clark v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 519.</p> <p>On question of requested charges: Ryan v. State, 142 S. W. Rep., 878; Byrd v. State, 140 S. W. Rep., 1087; Berg v. State, 142 S. W. Rep., 884.</p> <p>On question of newly discovered evidence: Hollingsworth v. State, recently decided.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. F. L. Hawkins. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

. Appeal from the County Court of Knox. Tried below before the Hon. E. K. Howell. Appeal from a conviction of using abusive language in the presence of others; penalty, a fine of $5. The opinion states the case.

-Tried below before the Hon. E. W. Nicholson. Appeal from a conviction of theft from the person; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states tire ease. On question of suspended sentence and charge of the court and verdict: Mills v. State, 168 S. W. Bep., 88; Barker y. State, 158 S. W. Bep., 998.

Tried below before the Hon. Marvin H. Brown. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the ease. —On question of declarations of deceased as to his relations to the’ wife of the defendant: Hill v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Kep., 241;, McAnear v. State, 43 id., 518; MeComas v. State, 75 S. \V. Kep., 533.

<p>1. — Murder—Evidence—Rebuttal—Explanation.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the State introduced testimony to show a premeditation to kill on the issue of malice, there was reversible error in not permitting the defendant in rebuttal to explain his movements and actions consistent with his innocence by showing for what purpose he carried the gun and whv he was present at the scene of the homicide.</p> <p>3. — Same—Rule Stated — Acts and Declarations of Defendant.</p> <p>Where the State proves that defendant went to a place where an offense was committed, defendant may prove acts and conversation explaining the visit. Following Jackson v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 79, and other eases.</p> <p>3. — Same—Rule Stated — Explanation.</p> <p>When evidence of an act done is placed in evidence by the State, defendant may prove acts and declarations made at the time, having a tendency to give character to fhe acts. Following Davis v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 91, and other eases.</p> <p>4. — Same—Rule Stated — Time of Declaration of Defendant — Res Gestae.</p> <p>The explanation, act, declaration, or statement is not restricted to the time when the act, etc., occurred, and if necessary, may be extended to a different time, and so remote as not to be admissible as res gestae. Following Potts v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 39, and other cases.</p> <p>5. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon' trial of murder, the evidence, although conflicting, sustained the conviction, there was no error on this ground.</p> <p>6. — Same—Evidence—Who Began Difficulty — Declaration of Deceased.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, there was an issue as to who began the difficulty, the defendant should have been permitted to introduce testimony as to a conversation between witness and deceased as to the whereabouts of the defendant, and that he had better stay away, to show the state of mind of the deceased, and that it might be probable that he committed the acts alleged by the defendant at the time of the homicide.</p> <p>7. — Same—Charge of Court — Character and Disposition of Deceased.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, there was no evidence of the character and disposition of the deceased, the court should not have submitted this matter in his charge on self-defense.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Anderson. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. W. C. Buford. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, five years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. James A. Cooley. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in,vthe county jail. The opinion states the case. On question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Daffin v. State, 11 Texas Crim. App., 76; Brownlee v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Bep., 408; Short v. State, 49 id., 244.

Tried below before the Hon. Ed B. Sinks. Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of former jeopardy: Landrum v. State, 40 S. W. Bep., 737.

Tried below before the Hon. Jo A. P. Dickson. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, thirty years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the ease. On question of cross-examination of wife: Eichards v. State, 110 S. W. Eep., 432; Marsh v. State, 112 S. W. Eep., 320; Gaines v. State, 42 S. W. Eep., 385; Eed v. State,, 46 S. W. Eep., 408. On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Walker v. State, 14; Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Non. A. B. Davis. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty-five years con-ffinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of general reputation for truth and veracity of witness: Rushing v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 603; Murphy y. State, 40 S. W. Rep., 978; Harris y. State, 45 ,S. W. Rep., 714; Payne v. State, 50 S. W. Rep., 363.

Tried below before the Hon. A. P. Young. Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of $400. The opinion states the case.

iAppeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. W. L. Crawford, Jr. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, one year confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. Cited eases in the opinion.

Tried below before the Hon. M. Kennon. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of justifiable homicide : Bichardson v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 493; French v. State, 117 S. W. Bep., 848; Slack v. State, 149 S. W. Bep., 107.

Tried below before the Hon. F. G: Chambliss. Appeal from a conviction of theft of cattle; penalty, two years imprisonment in the -penitentiary. The opinion stales the case.

Tried below before the Hon. Bobt. B. Seay. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty-five years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. 0. L. Lockett. Appeal from a conviction of theft of a horse; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. N. T. Stubbs. Appeal from a conviction of assault to murder; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of right of self-defense and charge of court: Eevnolds v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 414; Wimberly v. State, 22 id., 506; Bobison v. State, 160 S. W. Bep., 456; Hickey v. State, 102 S. W. Bep., 417. On question of defendant’s personal presence: Derden v. State, 133 5.

Tried below before the Hon. Frank S. Koberts. Appeal from a conviction of perjury; penalty, five years confinement in the penitentiary.

Tried below before the Hon. H. P. Daviss. Appeal from a conviction of wife abandonment after seduction and marriage; penalty, two and a half years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited eases in opinion.' Cited Hatch v. State, recently decided.

Tried below before the Hon. J. 'W. Holmes. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a fine of $100. The opinion states the case. On question of permitting witness in jail to testify: Lights v. State, 17 S. W. Bep., 428; Crockett v. State, 49 S. W. Bep., 392; Branches Crim. Law, paragraph 868. On question of time and place: Willis v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 118; Buntain v. State, 15 id., 490; Price y. State, 36 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. F. L. Hawkins. Appeal from a conviction of theft of a hog; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of the insufficiency of the 'ividence: Bagley v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 163. On question of admitting conversation: Anderson v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 49, and cases stated,in opinion. On question of impeaching witness: Rice v. State, 51 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. Jno. W. Goodwin. Appeal from a conviction of theft of mules; penalty, two years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of court’s charge on recent possession: Hudson v. State, 90 S. W. Eep., 177; Lewis v. State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 140; Heskew v. State, 17 id., 161; Beau v. State, 24 id., 11; Lacy v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Eep., 38; Jones v. State, 29 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Anderson. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. Ben H. Denton. Appeal from a conviction of acsault to murder; penalty, eight years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion' states the ease. On question of argument of counsel: Lyon v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Bep., 506; Johnson y. State, 46 id., 291; Newcomb v. State, 49 id., 550; Knight y. State, 55 id., 243. On question that counsel for State shall not argue matters not sustained by the evidence: Kirksey y. State, 61 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. Walter F. Timón, Appeal from a conviction of wife desertion; penalty, a fine of $250 and sixty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. On question of venue and jurisdiction: Hatch v. State, 174 S. W. Bep., 1062; Swearingen v. Swearingen, 165 S. W. Bep., 16; Carlton v. Carlton, 141 S,, W. Bep., 290; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 138 S. W. Bep., 205; McLean v. Bandel, 135 S. W. Bep., 1116; Haymond y. Haymond, 74 Texas, 414.

Tried below before the Hon. Jas. W. Swayne. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, two years imprisonment. The opinion states the case. On question of verdict: Buster v. State, 42 Texas, 315; Iindsay v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 3.27; Bland v. State, 4 id., 15; Wilbome v. State, 66 S. W. Rep., 559.

<p>1. — Rape—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of rape upon a female under the age of consent, the evidence sustained the conviction under a proper charge of the court, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>2. — Same—Other Acts of Sexual Intercourse — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of rape upon a female under the age of consent, the evidence showed more than one act of sexual intercourse, but the court in his charge confined the jury to the consideration of only one act, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>3. — Same—Force—Female Under the Age of Consent — Consent.</p> <p>To constitute rape on a female under the age of consent the question of force is not involved nor that she gave consent. Following Rogers v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 510, and other cases.</p> <p>4. — Same—Evidence—Bills of Exception.</p> <p>Where, on trial of rape, the hills of exception complaining of alleged errors in the admission or rejection of testimony were all defective in not pointing out the supposed error, there was no reversible error. Following Ortiz v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 608, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. Kenneth Foree. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiar}'. The opinion states the case. On question of amending statement of facts: Katcliff v„ State, 15 S. W. Rep., 596; Bingham v. State, 37 S. W. Rep., 753.

<p>Habeas Corpus — Denial of Bail.</p> <p>Where upon, appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding denying relator bail, there was no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.</p> <p>[Rehearing denied January 5, 1916. — Eeoorter.]</p>

<p>1. — Murder—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Death Penalty.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of murder, assessing the death penalty under a proper charge of the court, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>2. — Same—Undue Haste — Deliberation by Jury — Practice in District Court.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, the appellant complained that the jury did not give due consideration to the evidence and deliberation thereon, but acted in undue haste in returning their verdict; but the record on appeal showed no evidence of this fact or that the same was brought to the attention of the trial court, the same could not be considered on appeal.</p> <p>3. — Same—Express Malice — Death Penalty — Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder assessing the death penalty, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the ¡killing was upon express malice, although there was some conflict of testimony, the conviction was sustained under a proper charge of the court.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. W. P. Stinson. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $100 and sixty days confinement in jail. The opinion states the ease.

Appeal irom the County Court 'of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. Clark C. Wren. Appeal from a conviction of wife desertion^ penalty, twelve months confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

<p>Murder — Statement of Facts — Practice on. Appeal.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, the purported statement of facts was filed more than ninety days after the motion for a new trial had been overruled and notice of appeal entered, the court continuing in session more than eight weeks, the same can not be considered on appeal, and in the absence of such statement of facts the judgment must be affirmed.</p>

<p>Murder — Charge of Court — Practice on Appeal — Punishment.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, committed before the amendment to the murder statute doing away with the two degrees of murder, etc., no objection was made to the charge of the court which submitted the punishment now fixed for murder by the new statute, and no request having been made that the court should charge the penalty under the old .law, a complaint to the court’s charge for the first time being made in the motion for a new trial came too late, and there was no reversible error. Following Castillo v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 643, and other eases.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. G. W. Eobinson. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twelve years imprison-mest in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of cross-examination of witness on question of insanity: Kirby v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Eep., 63. On question of defendant’s failure to testify: Burk3 v. State, 65 S. W. Eep., 824; Bosley v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Eep., 100; Gatlin v. State, 72 Texas Crim.

Tried below before tbe Hon. Jas. Snowball, Special Judge. Appeal from a conviction of permitting liquors to be drunk in a disorderly bouse; penalty, a fine of $50 and thirty days confinement in. the county jail. The opinion states the case. Cited case in the opinion.

Tried below before the Hon. Jas. W. Swayne. Appeal from a conviction of the tbeft of a cow; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of supplemental motion for rehearing and withdrawing notice of appeal: Collins v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Bep., 534, 171 S. W. Bep., 729, Bundick v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Bep., 9. On question of refusal of requested charges: Wheeler v. State, 34 Texas Crim.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Erath. Tried below before the Hon. W. J. Oxford.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of rape upon a female under the age of consent; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of remarks by the judge: Caruth v. State, 177 S. W. Kep., 973; McMahan v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 489, 135 S. W. Rep., 558; Deary v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 352, 137 S. W. Rep., 699; Scott v. State, 71 Texas Crim.' Rep., 41, 160 S. W. Rep., 960.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. J. H. Arnold. Appeal from a conviction of perjury; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of reproduction of testimony: Freeman v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 580. On question of insufficiency of the indietment; Brooks v. State, 16 S. W. Rep., 542.

<p>Theft of Cattle — Misconduct of Jury — Motion for New Trial.</p> <p>Where defendant in his motion for new trial, which was supported by affidavit, alleged that after the jury retired to consider their verdict and before arriving at a verdict, the jury discussed the fact that defendant had been in the penitentiary at a previous time for theft of cattle; that he was a bad man and a thief and that he was a member of a family who all died with their boots on, all of which was not in evidence, and the record showed that immediately after the reading of this motion counsel for defendant informed the court that he desired to place the foreman of the jury and all the other members of the jury who sat upon defendant’s cáse upon the witness stand to prove this, which the court refused, and overruled the motion, the same was reversible error. Prendergast, Presiding Judge, dissenting.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. C. W. Bobinson.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>1. — Murder—Special Venire — Sheriff’s Return.</p> <p>Where appellant contended that the return of the officer on the special venire showed he had not summoned all the jurors therein named and failed to give sufficient reason therein why he had not summoned them, but the récord ■showed that the sheriff amended Ms return, showing specifically why he had not summoned said absent jurors, and the court issued proper attachments for such jurors, and there was nothing to show that they, had not been obtained there was no error m overruling the motion to quash the special venire.</p> <p>2. — Same—Jury Wheel Law — Constitutional Law — Discrimination.</p> <p>The Act of 1911, amending the original jury wheel law, is not unconstitutional and void because the certain officers designated to place in the jury wheel the names of jurors as required to select from the lists of qualified jurors of such counties, as shown by the tax lists in the tax assessor’s office for the current year, the jurors for service in the District and County Court of such county, whereas in all counties not placed under the provisions of the jury wheel law, all male persons over 21 years of age are competent, unless disqualified by the provisions of the law, and that such constitutes an unlawful and unjust discrimination.</p> <p>■S. — Same—Classification—Seasonable Grounds — Jury Wheel Law.</p> <p>The jury wheel law in this State is made applicable alone to counties that now contain, or may hereafter contain, a city of twenty thousand inhabitants, or more, and there are no unreasonable grounds why, under the jury wheel law, those to select jurors were limited to names appearing on the tax lists, while those to select jurors containing no such city are not so limited; and if in the opinion of the Legislature a reason existed for making the distinction, the law is not invalid, and there is no arbitrary classification, as the law applies alike to all counties of the same class.</p> <p>4. — Same—Evidence—Bias of Witness — Impeaching Witness.</p> <p>A witness can not be impeached upon an immaterial issue, and while it is always material to prove interest, bias, motive for animosity of a witness ■ as affecting the weight to be given his testimony, yet when he admits that he entertains animosity, and in no manner seeks to deny it, the truth or falsity of the reason he gives why he entertains such a state of feeling would be .immaterial.</p> <p>'5. — Same—Statement of Facts — Ground for Reversal — Stenographer.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, it appeared from the record that there was no order or judgment entry made on defendant’s motion ■asking that the official stenographer make out a statement of facts because ■defendant was unable to pay therefor, and further showed an order granting sixty days in which appellant could prepare and have filed a statement of facts, and that no further steps were taken with reference thereto, and also showed that there was a complete statement of facts agreed to and filed on the former appeal in this case, there was not sufficient diligence to show that the appellant was denied a statement of facts without fault on his part; especially in the absence of an ajiplieation to this court for the necessary process to require the official stenographer of the trial court to file a statement of facts, and there is no reversible error on this ground. Following Burden v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 349.</p> <p>l6. — Same — Rule Stated — Pauper’s Affidavit — Official Stenographer — Practice.</p> <p>While not necessary to a decision of this case, this court will say that •when the affidavit has been filed by one who has given notice of appeal, that he is unable to pay for having made out a statement of facts by the stenographer, or to give security therefor, it is the duty of the trial court, upon the refusal of the stenographer to comply with the law, upon application to compel the stenographer to do so; in the absence of a contest filed by the stenographer and an order of the court sustaining the same, and if the trial court fails to do so, this court, after jurisdiction attaches thereto, upon proper application, will require the stenographer to do hxs duty.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. SamT J. Styles. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, death. The opinion states the case.

<p>1. — Forgery—Deed—Indictment.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of forging ,a deed, -the indictment followed approved precedent, the same was sufficient. Following Thompson v. State, 69 Texas. Crim. Rep., 31.</p> <p>2. — Same—Marne of Party Forged.</p> <p>An indictment under article 947 of the Criminal Code which charges the forged deed to be the act of another, it is not necessary to allege whose act it purports to be. Following Hardin v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 129.</p> <p>8. — Same—Jurisdiction—Location of Land — Indictment.</p> <p>Where the forged deed, copied in the indictment, showed that the land purported to be conveyed thereby was in the county of the prosecution and that said deed was forged in said county, the contention that the court was without jurisdiction 'because the indictment did not show in what county the land was located which the forged deed conveyed, and because it used the words “and defraud” twice, is untenable.</p> <p>4. — Same—Motion in Arrest of Judgment — Purport Clause — Intent.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of forging .a deed, the indictment followed approved precedent, a motion in, arrest of judgment contending that the indictment did not set out any of the statutory elements of intent in the purport clause, etc., and in the purport clause charged additional and unnecessary facts, descriptive pf the land, the same was correctly overruled.</p>

<p>Appeal from tbe District • Court of Xnox. Tried below before the Hon. Jo A. P. Dickson.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of wife abandonment after seduction and marriage; penalty, six years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of indictment, statutes construed, and charge of court: Baskin v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Bep., 537; Qualls v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Bep., 67; Qualls v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Bep., 212; Coleman v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Bep., 20; James v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Bep., 457; Irving v. State, 73'Texas Crim. Bep., 615.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Conrt of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon.' W. L. Crawford, Jr.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $25 and fifteen days confinement in the county jail.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of affidavit taken before assistant county attorney: Naill v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Kep., 484.</p> <p>On question of court’s failure to charge on circumstantial evidence: Smith v. State, 12 S. W. Rep., 869; Montgomery .v. State, 20 S. W. Rep., 926; Crowell v. State, 6 S. W. Rep.', 318; Eckert v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 105.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the c-ase. On question of court’s failure to charge on circumstantial evidence: Eckert v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 105; Conner v. State, 17 id., 1; Willard v. State, 36 id., 136; Harris v. State, 15 id., 639; Trijo v-State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 137.

Trie'd below before the Hon. Nelson Lytle. Appeal from a conviction of violating the eight-hour labor law;, penalty, a fine of $50. The opinion states the ease. On question of constitutionality of law: Chenoweth v. State Medical Board of Examiners, 51 L. B. B. N. S.), 958. On question of insufficiency of complaint and information: Hunt v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., -104; Price v. State, 17 id., 232; Pittman t. State, 14 id., 576; Strickland v. State, 19 id., 518.

Tried below before the Hon. Eichard I. Munroe. Appeal from a- conviction of murder as an accomplice; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. On question of insufficiency of the evidence; to show that defendant advised or conspired with the principal to commit the homicide: Cooper y. State, 69 Texas Crim. Eep., 405. Upon question of right of principal to kill the deceased while fleeing from theft or burglary: Whitten v. State, 29 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. Geo. Morrison. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully practicing medicine; penalty, a fine of $175. The opinion states the case. On question of motion to quash information: Lockhart v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 73, 124 S. W. Rep., 923; Young v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 358, 128 S. W. Rep., 1103.

Tried below before the Non. Frank S. Roberts. Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding denying bail. The opinion states the ease. Cited Ex parte Stephenson, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 380, 160 S. W. Rep., 77.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Kerr. Tried below before the Hoa. R. H. Barney.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, forty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>A substantial statement of the facts in this case is contained in the opinion of the court on former appeal, reported in 77 Texas Crim. Rep., 130, 177 S. W. Rep., 959, and this, in addition to the statements made in this opinion sufficiently states the ease.</p> <p>On question of overruling motion for change of venue: Meyers v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 500; Gallaher v.’State, 40 id., 396; Alarcon v. State, 47 id., 415; Cortez v. State, 44 id., 169; Randle v. State, 34 id., 43; Faulkner v. State, 43 id., 311; Dobbs v. State, 51 id., 639; Gallagher v. State, 55 id., 50; Smith v. State, 45 id., 405.</p> <p>On question of motion of continuance: Smith v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 617; Jones v. State, 55 id., 133; Roquemore v. State, 54 id., 593; Weaver v. State, 53 id., 11.</p> <p>On question of introducing watch of deceased in evidence: Pharr v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 139.</p> <p>.Remarks by judge: Drake v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 383, 143' S. W. Rep., 1157.</p>

Tried below before the Son. H. F. O’Neal. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>1. — Assault to Murder — Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of assault with intent to murder, the evidence, although ■conflicting, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>2. — Same—Continuance—Want of Diligence.</p> <p>Where the application for continuance showed a want of diligence, there was no error in overruling the same. Following Stacy v. State, 77 Texas Crim. Rep., 52.</p> <p>3. — Same—Argument of Counsel — Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Where the bills of exception to the argument of counsel did not point out the error, they can not be considered on appeal; but if considered show no-reversible error. Following Mooney v. State, 76 Texas Crim. Rep., 539, and other cases.</p> <p>4. — Same—Newly Discovered Evidence — Presumption.</p> <p>Where the record did not show A statement of facts on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be presumed that the motion was correctly overruled. Following Knight v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 541, and other cases. Besides, the record showed a want of diligence in not discovering the alleged newly discovered evidence.</p>

M. G. Sanders. Appeal from a conviction of rape upon a female under the age of consent; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Johnson v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 163. On question of rejecting testimony as to age of prosecutrix: Wool-bright v. State, 35 S. W. Rep., 393; Good v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 39; Shearar v. State, 30 id., 349; Hill v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 241.

Tried below before the Hon. George Harkrider. Appeal from a conviction of simple assault; penalty, a fine of $5. The opinion states the case. On question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Jernigan v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 465; Berry v. State, 30 id., 423; Cox v. State, 44 S. W. Bep., 157.

Tried below before the-Hon. W. G. Buford. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, fifteen years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the ease. On question of failure to point out error in refused requested charges: Berg' v. State, 64 Texas Crim. JRep., 612; Byan v. State, 64 id., 628'; Byrd y. State, 69 id., 35.

Tried below before the lion. Kichard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of corpus delicti: Follis v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Kep., 186, and cases cited in opinion. On question of voluntary confession: Briscoe v. State, 11 S. W. Bep., 113; Cain v. State, 18 Texas, 387; Simon v. State, 37 Miss., 388; 13 Cyc., 639; Branch’s Crim. Law, 53.

Tried below before the Hon. N. H. Garnett. Appeal from a conviction of negligent homicide of the first degree; penalty, one year confinement in the county jail.

<p>1. — Rape—Evidence-—General Reputation of Witness.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of rape upon a female under the age of consent, the State showed that the mother of said female aided and encouraged the defendant in the commission of the crime, which the mother denied, it was reversible error not to permit the defendant in rebuttal to show said mother’s good reputation for virtue and chastity, and that she was a hard-working, law-abiding woman. Following Holland v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 117, and other cases.</p> <p>2. — Same—Evidence—Age of Prosecutrix — School Record.</p> <p>Upon trial of rape on a female under the age of consent, the age of the prosecutrix can not be shown by the school record, and this although the mother of the prosecutrix testified to the same date of birth and age of prosecutrix. Following Simpson v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 551.</p> <p>•8. — Same—Colloquy Between Counsel and Court.</p> <p>Where the argument of the prosecuting officer, with reference to the defendant’s failure to testify was probably improper, yet as the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded on other grounds this need not be considered.</p> <p>[Behearing denied December 22, 1915. — Beporter.]</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Jasper. Tried below before the Hon. A. E. Davis.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the ease.</p> <p>On question of court’s charge on principals: Cunningham v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 479.</p> <p>On question of independent impulse: Smith v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Bep., 27; Turner v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 68; Harris v. State, 15 id., 636.</p> <p>On question of conspiracy: Blaine v. State, 18 S. W. Bep., 862; Benner v. State, 65 S. W. Bep., 1102.</p> <p>Upon court’s charge on accomplice’s testimony: Jones v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Bep., 559.</p> <p>Upon question that conspiracy must be established before admitting in evidence acts and declarations of alleged co-conspirators: Young v. State, 69 S. W. Bep., 153; Bipley v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Bep., 126.</p> <p>On question of admitting declarations of co-defendant, as to the meaning that he had to have a negro: Myers v. State, 39 S. W. Bep., Ill; Watson v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Bep., 551.</p> <p>Upon question of other transactions: Barkman v. State, 52 S. W. Bep., 73; Smith v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Bep., 80; Hunt v. State, 60 S. W. Bep., 965.</p> <p>Upon question of evidence upon conspiracy: Branch’s Crim. Law, secs. 237, 239.</p> <p>Upon question of acts and declarations of co-conspirators: Blaine v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Bep., 236; Baker v. State, 45 id., 392; Smith v. State, 48 id., 233; Branch’s Crim. Law, secs. 240-245, and eases cited in opinion. .</p>

Tried below before the Hon. A. C. Nicholson. Appeal from a conviction of using abusive language, and disturbing the peace; penalty, a fine of $1. The opinion states the case. On question of statement of facts: Bigham v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep,, 453; Sims -v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 533; Haak v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep.,'366, 132 S! W. Rep., 358.

Tried below before the Hon. W. E. Gray. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the ease.

Tried below before tho Hon. Harvey Harris. Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy; penalty, a fine of $100. The opinion states the ease. Upon question of insufficiency of the information: Walton v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 117; Hunt v. State, 9 id., 404; Parker y. State, 9 id., 351; Edwards y. State, 71 Texas Crim. Bep., 405, 160 S. W. Bep., 80; De Los Santos y. State, 65 Texas Crim. Bep., 518, 146 S. W. Bep., 919.

Tried below before the Hon. W. B. Hopkins. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the ease. On question of cross-examination of State’s witnesses: Blunt v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 235; Oreen v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Bep., 7; Earles v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Bep., 537, 142 S. W. Bep., 1181; Christian v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Bep., 566, 161 S. W. Bep., 101; Burge v. State, 73 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. A. E. Davis. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of independent impulse: Smith v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Bep., 27, 105 S. W. Bep., 182; Harris v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 629; Turner v. State, 20 id., 56; Blain v. State, 18 S. W. Bep., 862; Benner v. State, 65 S. W. Bep., 1102.

Tried below before the Hon. John D. Bichar dson. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, fifty years imprisonment in the penitentiary. • The opinion states the case. On question of refusing postponement for trial; Conway v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Bep., 316, 108 S. W. Bep., 1185; Harris v. State, 169 S. W. Bep., 657; Mason v. State, 74 Texas Crim. Bep., 356, 168 S. W. Bep., 115«

Tried below before the Hon. C. W. Eobinson. Appeal from a conviction of rape upon a female under the age of consent; penalty, death. The opinion states the ease. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Hon. J. F. Lindsey. Appeal from a conviction of pandering; penalty, a fine of $100 and six months confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. W. E. Gray. Appeal from a conviction of disturbing the peace; penalty, a fine of $5. The opinion states the ease. On question of sufficiency of the evidence: Steinberger v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 492.

Tried below before the ¡Hon. Nelson Lytle. Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy; penalty, a fine of $200. The opinion states the case.

<p>1. — Murder—Misconduct of Jurjj^-Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where the alleged statement of facts, with reference to the misconduct •of the jury on motion for new trial, was not approved and filed before the adjournment of the court at which defendant was tried, the same can not be considered on appeal. Following Lucas v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 269, and other cases.</p> <p>2. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.'</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the conviction was sustained by the evidence, although conflicting, there was no reversible error.</p>

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the ‘Hon. Jesse M. Brown.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of a delinquent child; penalty, confinement in the State Institution for Training Juveniles, upon an indeterminate sentence. •</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited cases in the opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. H. W. Bunnels, recorder. Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy; penalty, a fine of $I0Q'. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

Appeal irom the District Court of Titus. Tried below before the Hon. J. A. Ward. Appeal from a conviction of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in a local option territory; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of jury and jury law: Deadweyler v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Bep., 63; Columbo v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Bep., 608, 145 S. W. Bep., 910, and cases stated in the opinion.

-Tried below before the Hon. Dan M. Jackson. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of reading certified copy of indictment: Essary v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 596, 111 S. W. Rep., 927; McKinney y. State, 48 Tqxas Crim. Rep.,-402; Wilkins v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 420. On question of waiver: Carter y. State, 58 S. W. Rep., 80; Barton y. State, 9 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the' Hon. Jesse M. Brown. Appeal from a conviction of selling liquor without license; penalty, a fine of $500 and one day confinement in the county jail. The recognizance failed to conclude with the words “In this case.” On question of insufficient recognizance: Lindsey v. State, 59 Texas Grim. Rep., 273; Harden v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 84, 136 S. W. Rep., 768.

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. 0. W. Robinson.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, death.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of confessions: Oliver v. State, 159 S. W. Rep., 240; Kelly v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 663.</p> <p>On question of principals: Miller v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 125; Bass v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 186; Espinoza v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Hep., 237, 165 S. W. Rep., 208; Coulter y. State, .162 S. W. Rep., 885; Thompson y. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 514, 163 S. W. Rep., 973.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. E. W. Nieholson. Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of insufficiency of the indictment: Munoz v.-State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 457; Johnson v. State, 40 id., 605; Cagle v. State, 39 id., 109; Lynch v. State, 41 id., 510; Millsaps t. State, 43 S. W. Rep., 1015; Daud v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 460; Lamb-Campbell v. State, 72 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Hon. J. Q. Henry. Appeal from a conviction of false imprisonment; penalty, a fine of $100 and one month confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. On question of mitigation of punishment: Newbum v. Durham, 32 S. W. Rep., 112; Pincham v. Dick, 70 S. W. Rep., 333; Earner v. Stump, 34 S. W. Rep., 656; Landrum v. Wells, 7 Texas Civ. App., 625; Formwalt v. Hylton; 66 Texas, 288; Neall v. Hart, 115 Pa.

Tried below before the Hon. W. H. McClelland. Appeal from a conviction of’misdemeanor theft; penalty, afine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case.

From Fayette County. Original babeas corpus proceedings asking release from custody of the sheriff upon judgment in the District Court finding relator guilty of contempt and assessing a penalty of $50 and one day confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the ease. Cited State v. .Shepherd, 76 S. W. Bep., 79; Res-publica v. Passmore, 2 Am. Dee., 388; State y. Morrill, 16 Ark., 384; Commonwealth y. Daniels, 2 Ya. Cases, 402; Conner y. Stapleton, 33 Pac.

Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Scott. . Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, fifteen years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of declaration of deceased: Leadbetter v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 247; Ex parte Fartheree, 34 Texas Oftn. Bep., 594; Jones v. State, 33 id., 492; Martin v. State, 36 id., 632; Lockhart v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Bep., 589, 111 S. W. Bep., 1024.

Tried below before the Hon. E. W. Nicholson. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of hill of exceptions: Berg v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Bep., 612; Byan v. State, 64 id., 628; Byrd v. State, 69 id., 35.

Tried below before the Hon. John M. Conley. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, death. The opinion states the case. On question of use of intoxicating liquors and court’s failure to charge thereon: Otto v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Bep., 128; Erwin v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 701; Kelley V. State, 20 S. W. Bep., 357; Cannon y. State, 56 S. W. Bep., 351; Whitten v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Bep., 227, 170 S. W. Bep., 719; JJorhouse v. State, 50 S. W. Bep., 361.

Tried below before the Hon. W. R. Fly. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully pursuing the occupation of peddling medicines without license, and paying the occupation tax therein; penalty, a fine of $150. The opinion states the ease. Cited Watkins Medical Co. v. Johnson et al., 162 S. W. Rep., 394; Erwin v. L. I. Dupoint DeNormans Powder Co. et al., 156 S. W. Rep., 1097; Rock Vegetable Tea Co. v. Malone, 162 S. W. Rep., 662; Kirkpatrick v. State, 60 S. W. Rep., 762.

Tried below before the Hon. J. H. Arnold. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of charge of court: Melton v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Kep.„ 130, 158 S. W. Kep., 550; Carter v. State, 170 S. W. Bep., 739. On question of charge on self-defense: Lyons v. State, 159 S. W. Bep., 1071; Bussey v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Bep., 98, 153 S. W. Bep., 873.

Tried below, before tbe Hon. L. D. Guinn. Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>1. — Theft—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of theft under the value of fifty dollars by false pretenses and fraudulent representations, etc., the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>£. — Same—Bill of Exceptions — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where the hills of exception were not filed in time, they could not be considered on appeal; besides, they did not present error.</p>

Tried b?low before the-Hon. W. B. Hopkins. Appeal from a habeas corpus proceedings denying defendant bail on a charge of murder. The opinion states the case. Cited Ex Parte Sapp, recently decided, and other cases.

Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Davidson. Appeal from a conviction of ordinary burglary; penalty, five years imprisonment in. the penitentiary. The opinion states the ease.

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Williamson. Tried below before the Hon. Richard Critz.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a fine of $100.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited Van Dyke v. State, 179 S. W. Rep., 111.</p>

Tried below before the-Hon. S. W. Dean. Appeal from a conviction of theft of cattle; penalty, three years imprisonment in tbe penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of accomplice and insufficiency of the evidence: Criner v. State, 53 S. W. Hep., 873; Mc-Alister v. State, 76 S. W. Eep., 760. On question of competency of witness: Freeman v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Eep., 568; Underwood v. State, 38 id., 193; Pitner y. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 366.

Tried below before the Hon. A. M. Blackmon- Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, fifteen years confinement in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of continuance: Gilerease v. State, 28 S. W. Kep., 531; Morgan v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Kep., 542, 113 S. W. Kep., 934; Casey v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Kep., 443, 102 S. W. Kep., 725. On question of general reputation of deceased: Irwin v. State, 43 Texas, 236; Horbach v. State, 43 Texas, 242.

Tried below before the Hou. E. W. Nicholson. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of ex-convict, pardon and incompeteney of witness: Tijerina y. State, 74 S. W. Eep., 913; Gardner v. State, 11 Texas Crim. App., 265. On question of insufficiency of bill of exceptions: Welch y. State, 57 Texas Crim. Eep., 111.

2, Harris County. Tried •below before the Hon. Murray B. Jones. Appeal from a conviction of wife desertion; penalty, a fine of $100. The' opinion states the ease. On question of insufficiency of the evidence: State v. Eice, 106 Ind., 139; People v. Miller, 63 N. Y. S., 949; Burton v. Commonwealth, 63 S. B. Eep., 464; State v. Lasley, 151 •S. W. Eep., 752; Windom v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Eep., 198; Brown v. State, 119 N. W. Eep., 338; State v. Macklin, 86 Mo.

Tried below before the Hon. W. H. McClelland. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 an’d twenty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. On question of alibi: Arismen-dis v. State, 60 S. W. Bep., 47; Harper v. State, 98 S. W. Bep., 839; Tijerina v. State, 74 S. W. Bep., 913; Colbert v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Bep., 486, 107 S. W. Bep., 1115.

<p>Appeal from the District .Court of Goliad. Tried below before the Hon. John M. Green. • 1</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of assault to murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of adequate cause: Gillespie v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Kep., 167, 109 S. W. Bep., 158; Crews v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Bep., 533; Jones v. State, 26 S. W. Bep., 1082; Tickle v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 623. Upon question of specific intent: Darity v. State, 43 S. W. Bep., 982.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. S. W. Dean. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law;penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of overruling motion for continuance: Graham v. State, Texas Crim. Eep., 9, 160 S. W. Eep., 714. On question of attorney and client: Kuehn v. State, 85 S. W. Eep., 793.

Tried below before tbe Hon. W. H. McClelland. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $25. The opinion states the ease. On question of striking out statement of facts: Shepherd v. State, 79 S. W. Rep., 316; Albert Shaffer v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 646, 127 S. W. Rep., 206.

Tried below before the Hon. J. V. Scott. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, sixty years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the ease. On question of declarations of deceased. Turner v. State, 45 S. W. Rep., 830; Early v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Repv 382, 103 S. W. Rep., 868; Gaines v. State, 42 S. W, Rep., 385.

From Bexar County. Original habeas corpus proceedings praying release from arrest, upon complaint charging relator with 'violating the provisions of chapter 28, Acts of the Thirty-fourth Legislature, defining and regulating loan brokers. The opinion states the case. On question of unconstitutionality of the law: Owen v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Bep., 105, 112 S. W. Bep., 1075; G., C. & S. F. By. Co. v. Ellis, 165 IT.

' Appeal from the County Court of Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. Tom L. Beauchamp. Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy; penalty,.a fine of $100. The opinion states the ease. Ball v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Bep., 214.

<p>1. — Selling Intoxicating Liquors Without License.</p> <p>Where* upon trial of selling intoxicating liquors without license in non-prohibition territory, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>2. — Same—Evidence—Other Transactions.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of selling intoxicating liquors without license, defendant contended that he made a gift and not a sale of the whisky, there was no error in admitting testimony of the sale of beer by him about the same time, the court properly limiting the testimony. Hollowing Craig v. State, 23 S. W. Rep., 1108, and other cases.</p> <p>S. — Same—Name of Prosecutor — Idem Sonans.</p> <p>Where the testimony showed that the prosecutor’s name was “Chaudoin” and the name alleged in the information was “Chandoin” and that he was called by both names, there was no reversible error. Hollowing Perez v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 34, and other cases.</p>

<p>Adultery — Information—Complaint—Waiver—County Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of adultery in the County Court, the ease was tried upon complaint to which defendant objected and insisted that ho must he tried upon information, the question of waiver was not involved, and the judgment must he reversed and the cause remanded. Following Ethridge v. State, 172 S. W. Rep., 784, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. F. G. Chambliss. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of court’s failure to charge on aggravated assault: Pate v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 462; Davis v. State,- 63 id., 484, and cases cited in opinion. On question of reproduction of testimony: Barron v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 462.

Tried below before the Hon. W. J. Oxford. Appeal from a conviction of accessory to burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case On the question of accessory: Kings-berry v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 259.,

Tried below before the Hon. J. W. Akin. Appeal from a conviction of arson; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of bill of exceptions: Turner v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 97, 136 S. W. Rep., 486; Herrin v. Daly, 31 So. Rep., 790; Ridge v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 814, 134 S. W. Rep., 732; Ellington v. State, 87 S. W. Rep., 153; Gardner v. State, 11 Texas Crim.

Tried below before tbe Hon. D. B. Hill. Appeal from a conviction of embezzlement; penalty, two years imprisonment in tbe penitentiary. Tbe opinion states tbe case.

Tried below before the Hon. W. J. Oxford. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penahy, three and one-half years imprisonment in the penitentiary. . The opinion states the case.

<p>1. — Murder—Special "Venire — Challenge ior Cause.</p> <p>Where the clerk drew the name of J. Stam Dayenport upon the special venire, but in the list served on defendant this name was written J. Stam Davis, the same would be ground for challenge but not to quash the venire; besides, this man did not serve on the jury, and there was no error in overruling the motion to quash the venire. Following Bowen v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 617, and other gases.</p> <p>2. — Same—Circumstantial Evidence — Money Found — Fruits of Crime.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, it appeared that at the time of the homicide the deceased had some small silver change and nickels on her person, there was no error in admitting in evidence that twenty years after the death of the deceased the witness plowed up in the back yard of the place occupied by defendant at the time of the homicide, and which had since not been occupied, some quarters, nickels and dimes, all of which were antedated to the death of the deceased.</p> <p>3. — Same—Evidence—Circumstances.</p> <p>Upon trial of murder, there was no error in admitting testimony that on the day the deceased was killed the witness saw defendant’s dog coming from the direction of the place of deceased and going towards defendant’s house, it being shown that this dog was traveling in the same direction and near the place where the horse tracks which corresponded to the tracks of the horse owned by defendant, were discovered and traced, and. also defendant’s own tracks which were found in the smokehouse where the homicide occurred. Following Walker v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 245, and other eases.</p> <p>4. — Same—Evidence—Tracks.</p> <p>Upon, trial of murder, there was no error in admitting testimony that the witnesses had tracked a pony from near deceased’s home to the back of defendant’s field across the woods and into and through defendant’s field up to tracks which were also found in the smokehouse where the homicide occurred. The fact that defendant was under arrest when his foot was measured is immaterial. Following Walker v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 245, and other cases.</p> <p>5. — Same—Evidence—Footprints.</p> <p>Upon trial of murder, depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there was no error in permitting a witness to testify that he saw near the body of the deceased a barefoot "human track which compared favorably with tracks made by defendant and which the witness measured, but the stick with which measurements was made had since been lost. Following Cordes v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 234, and other cases.</p> <p>6. — Same—Measurements of Tracks — Evidence—Rule Stated.</p> <p>If measurements were made of certain tracks shortly after the offense, it is not necessary to produce the stick or implement with which the tracks were measured, on the trial, before proof of result of the measurements is admissible in evidence; the witness can testify that he measured the tracks at that time and remembers that they corresponded. Following Weaver v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 607, and other cases.</p> <p>7. — Same—Rule Stated — Measurement of Tracks.</p> <p>And even if the witness himself did not do the measuring, yet if he was with the person who did it and who testified to the measurement, the witness’ testimony is admissible.</p> <p>8. — Same—Circumstantial Evidence — Fruits of Crime.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of (murder, it [appeared that the defendant was seen on the morning of the homicide and twas wearing a pair of overalls- and had on a shirt, which disappeared immediately after the homicide, and it was also shown that a severe ctruggle occurred when deceased was killed and that blood was found on the floor and walls ¡oí the smokehouse where the homicide occurred, which would indicate that the person who killed the deceased would doubtless have blood spattered off his clothing, there was no error in admitting testimony that &t the time the witnesses sifted the ashes in defendant’s fireplace they found overall buttons and some shirt buttons therein.</p> <p>9. — Same—Evidence—Confession—Husband and Wife — Privileged Communications. o</p> <p>Upon trial of murder, there was no error in admitting in evidence the conversation between defendant and his wife, ten or twelve years after the murder, which was overheard by a third party and in which, the defendant admitted the killing of the deceased with which he was charged by his wife. This was in no sense a privileged communication. Following Cole v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 89, and other cases.</p> <p>10. — Same—Reputation, for Truth and Veracity — Testimony too Remote.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the defendant offered to prove that his witnesses knew the reputation of the State’s witness who testified to defendant’3 confession up to some ten or twelve years before the trial and that the same was bad for truth and veracity, there was no error in excluding such testimony as being too remote, as the said State’s witness had lived five or six years in the county of the prosecution prior to the trial and no attempt was made that during that time her reputation for truth and veracity was bad. Following Leach v. State, 78 Texas Crim-. Rep., 55, 180 S. W. Rep., 122.</p> <p>11. — Same—Evidence—Conduct of Sheriff.</p> <p>Upon trial of murder, there was no error in refusing to permit the defendant to testify that since his arrest the sheriff had been allowing him to go at large, as the sheriff had no right to do so; besides, several witnesses testified to this fact.</p> <p>12. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the ■conviction, there was no error in the court’s refusal to instruct the jury peremptorily to acquit.</p> <p>13. — Same—Evidence—Explanation—Harmless Error.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the officer who arrested the defendant shortly after the homicide testified that he found some scratched places on defendant’s arm and that his hat was slightly burned or scorched which, with other testimony, tended to show that the burned place on the hat when scraped showed evidence of blood having been thereon, etc., the court should have admitted in evidence defendant’s explanation at the time as to why the scratches were on his arm and how his hat got burned, but inasmuch as the defendant was permitted himself to make this explanation without question, the same was harmless error.</p> <p>14. — Same—Bills of Exception — Bystander’s Bill — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where the lower court declined to approve certain bills of exception on the ground that they were incorrect and no bystander’s bill was secured, the same can not be considered on appeal, in the absence of some proof that the bills of exception were not correct.</p> <p>[Eehearing denied March 1, 1916. — Reporter.]</p>

Tried below before the Hon. B. Jay Jackson. Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $25 and thirty minutes confinement in the jail. The opinion states the_ ease. On question of cross-examination of wife: Marsh v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 144; Hobbs v. State, 53 id., 71; Welch v. State, 46 S. W. Rep., 812, On question of tracks: Myres v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 48; Clark v. State, 26 S. W. Rep., 68, and cases cited in opinion.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Scurry. Tried below before the Hon. John B. Thomas.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. W. J. Oxford. Appeal from a conviction of seduction; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of postponement and continuance: McCline v. State, 7 S. W-Rep., 667; Taylor v. State, 11 S. W. Kep., 35. On question of declarations of defendant: State v. Bruton, 161 S. W. Rep., 751.

Tried below before the Hon. W. L. Crawford, Jr. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The evidence for the State shows that the defendant and his companion forcibly threw down the prosecuting witness, and by force took the money away from him without his consent. Upon the question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Powell v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Kep., 201, 131 S. V. Bep., 590; Hall v. State, 72 Texas Crim.