Volume 90 — Texas Criminal Reports

<p>1. — Murder—Change of Venue — Affidavit—Practice in Trial Court.</p> <p>Where the issue made hy the State based upon an affidavit attacking the credibility and means of knowledge of defendant’s compurgators in his application for change of venue was in statutory form, the court did not err in overruling defendant’s demurrer thereto.</p> <p>2. — Same—Change of Venue — Scope of Inquiry — Prejudice.</p> <p>Upon the hearing of evidence upon the issue of a change of venue, the trial court commits no error in enlarging the scope of the hearing to extend beyond the credibility and means of knowledge of the compurgators, when it hears evidence as to the existence of prejudice, etc. Following Meuly v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 274, and other cases.</p> <p>3. — Same—Discretion of Court — Rules Stated.</p> <p>It will not be concluded that the trial court abused his discretion in overruling the application for a change of venue unless injury appears.</p> <p>4. — Same—Jury and Jury Law — Special Venire.</p> <p>Where fifty-four veniremen out of sixty veniremen summoned appeared, and eleven jurors were obtained, and the trial court ordered fifteen other, veniremen out of which the remaining juror was accepted, and the defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>5. — Same—Evidence—Ill Feeling.</p> <p>Upon trial of murder, there was no error in permitting the State to introduce testimony with reference to the parties toward a certain woman from whom ill-feeling arose between them, and to show the intimacy of defendant with said woman.</p> <p>6. — Same—Evidence—Flight—Concealment.</p> <p>Upon trial of murder, there was no error in the introduction of testimony by the State showing that after the shooting, the officers, searching for defendant, found him in a large meat box; defendant’s contention being that he went there in fear of a mob. This would only affect the weight of evidence.</p> <p>7. — Same—Evidence—Res Inter Alias Acta — Undisclosed Motive.</p> <p>Upon trial of murder, testimony introduced by the State, with reference-to acts between deceased and á certain gun-smith concerning the gun which he carried and the conversation between deceased and his wife, regarding-said gun, were res inter alias acta, and bore upon an undisclosed motive on the part of the deceased in carrying said gun, the same was inadmissible.. Following Brumley v. State, 21 Texas Crim. App., 238, and other cases.</p> <p>8. — Same—Evidence—Other Offenses — Credibility of Witness.</p> <p>' In the absence of proof of some character of a legal charge against the-witness, or legal arrest or conviction for theft of the property in question, the testimony was inadmissible. Following Lassater v. State, recently decided.</p> <p>9. — Same—Self-defense—Apparent Banger — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the court’s charge on self-defense restricted defendant’s right to the theory of real danger when the.evidence raised the issue of apparent danger, same was reversible error, although tha charge was correct in the abstract.</p> <p>10. — Same—Urovoking Difficulty — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence raised the issue of imperfect self-defense not brought about by provoking the difficulty, but by the act of defendant beginning hostilities a charge should have applied the-law to this phase of the case.</p> <p>11. — Same—Manslaughter—Charge of Court — Mental Condition of Defendant.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, there was evidence which raised the issue-of adequate cause, and which rendered the mind of the defendant incapable of cool reflection, the court should have submitted manslaughter upon this; issue of fact in evidence, and a failure to do so was reversible error.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable J. B. Keith. Appeal from a conviction of murder, penalty, seven years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of principals: Guffey v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 187; Red v. State, 47 S. W. Rep., 1003. On question of manslaughter: Hawthorne v. State, 12 S. W. Rep., 603; Gant v. State, 116 id., 801; Bee v. State, 113 id., 301; Wheeler v. State, 111 id., 1022.

Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, imprisonment in the penitentiary for eleven years. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable Geo. E. Hosey. Appeal from a conviction of murder; .penalty, thirty-five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of impeaching defendant’s testimony; Drake v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 265; Jennings v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 422; Davis v. State, 155 S. W. Rep., 550; Sapp v. State, 190 id., 489. On question of permitting jury to take pistol in their retirement: Williams v. State, 35 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Honorable Geo. E. Hosey. Appeal from a conviction of theft as an accomplice; penalty, ten years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of other transactions: State v. Parker, 75 S. W. Rep., 30; Tate v. State, 151 id., 825.

From Harris County. Original Habeas Corpus proceedings asking release from arrest under a judgment of contempt. In the Criminal District Court of Harris County. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

1, of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen. Appeal from a conviction of receiving stolen property; penalty, two years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.? On question of copy of expense bill: Southwest Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Owens, 116 S. W. Rep., 89. On question of attack upon credibility of State’s witness: Cooper v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 8. On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Boyd v. State, 24 Texas Crim.

Tried' below before the Honorable P. A. Turner. Appeal from a conviction of murder;; penalty, ninety-nine years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable Robt. B. Seay. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of malice: Farrer v. State, 42 Texas, 265; Burnham v. State, 43 id., 322; Ferrell v. State, 43 id., 503; Summers v. State, 5 Texas Crim. App., 366.

Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, twenty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable V. L. Shurtleff, Special Judge. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Smith. Tried below before the Honorable J. R. Warren.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the gaming law; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>—Cited Borches v. State, 21 S. W. Rep., 192; Payne v. State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 40; McRay v. State, 18 id., 331; Parshall v. State, 138 S. W. Rep., 778; Simons v. State, 120 id., 208; State ex rel. Crow v. St. Louis, 73 S. W. Rep., 623; Walters v. State, 125 S. W. Rep., 11.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable Geo. E. Hosey.</p> <p>Appeal from the conviction of keeping a gambling house; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited: Simons v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 339.</p> <p>Cited Parshall v. State, 138 S. W. 'Rep., 759; Knox v. State, 138 id., 787; Goodwin v. State, 143 id., 939; Robertson v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 307; Stevens v. State, 70 id., 565; Williams v. State, 71 id., 6.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Giles P. Lester. Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the Sunday law; penalty, a fine of $20. The opinion states the case. Cited Lankford v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 283; Godwin v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 599; Taylor v. State, 50 id, 381; Gould v. State, 134 S. W. Rep, 695. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Bishop. Appeal from a conviction of theft of a hog; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable L. D. Guinn. Appeal from a conviction of having in possession intoxicating liquors; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Appeal, from the District Court of Harrison. Tried below before the Honorable P. O. Beard. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of corroboration: Maibaum v. State, 128 S. W. Rep., 378; Jones v. State, 129 id., 1120; Fair v. State, 160 id., 1187. On question of corroboration: McCue v. State, 170 S. W. Rep., 280; Holmes v. State, 157 S. W. Rep., 493.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Val Verde. Tried below before the Honorable Joseph Jones.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, ninety-nine years in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable Geo. E. Hosey.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of not rendering assistance to a person who was struck by defendant with his automobile, etc.; penalty, a fine of $100, and 90 days in jail.</p> <p>.The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited Griffin v. State, 218 S. W. Rep., 494, and cases cited in opinion.</p>

Tried .below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to rape; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of personal opinion of court on question of change of venue: Leonard v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 190; Pearson v. State, 56 id., 610; Dobbs v. State, 51 id., 629, and cases cited in opinion. On question of change of venue: Buie v. State, 1 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of circumstantial evidence: Hunt v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 212; Black v. State, 18 id., 124; Counts v. State, 19 id., 452. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill. Appeal from a conviction of receiving stolen property; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of Argument of Counsel: Whitfill v. State, 169 S. W. Rep., 681. On question of cross examination of wife: Ray v. State, 64 S. W. Rep., 1057; Wooddall v. State, 126 id., 591; Eads v. State, 170 id., 145. On question of number of grand jurors; Maul v. State, 26 S. W. Rep., 199.

Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states' the case. On question of insufficiency of indictment: Wells v. State, 4 Texas Crim. App., 24. Spencer v. State, 5.5 S. W. Rep., 58. On question of description of money: Wade v. State, 32 S. W. Rep., 772, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, six months, confinement in the. county jail. The opinion states.the case. Cited Doss v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 510; Bonner v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 350; Schenk v. State, 174 S. W. Rep.* 357.

Tried below before the Honorable W. C. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquors; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

<p>1. — Motor Vehicle — Public 'Highway — Constitutionality of Law — Motion for New Trial.</p> <p>Where, in his amended motion for a new trial, appellant for the first time set up the unconstitutionality of Section 18, Chapter 207, Acts of Regular Session, Thirty-fifth Legislature, held: this should have properly been presented by motion to quash.</p> <p>2. — Same—Constitutional Law — Title of Act.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of a • violation of the provisions of Section 18, of Chapter 207, Acts of Regular Session, Thirty-fifth Legislature, appellant contended that the title to the Act in question embraced more than one subject, and was therefore unconstitutional; held, that under the liberal construction, construing Section 35, of Article 3, of the Constitution of Texas, this contention is untenable.</p> <p>3. — Same—Indictment—Services of a Physician — Pleading.</p> <p>Where appellant contended in his motion, in arrest of judgment, that the indictment was fatally defective, in that it failed to allege that the injured party needed or requested the services of a physician, or that same were necessary, or that she a„ked for such services, but the record showed that these allegations were contained in the indictment substantially, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>4. — Same—Misspelling—Indictment—Words and Phrases — Matter of Form.</p> <p>Mere matters of bad spelling, etc., do not ordinarily affect the indictment, and the motion being addressed to the fc.-m of said indictment must in any event be raised by motion to quash, and cannot be urged after verdict.</p> <p>5. — Same—Charge of Court — Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Objections to the charge of the court cannot be considered on appeal, where the same were made for the first time in motion for new trial.</p> <p>6. — Same—Punishment—Statutes Construed.</p> <p>Where the statutes showed that the punishment is fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for some term not to exceed five years, or by imprisonment in the county jail, for some term not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment, an attack upon its validity was properly overruled. Following Scott v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep. 100.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable C. E. Dubois. Appeal from a judgment denying bail in a capital case. The opinion states the case. Cited Ex Parte Stevenson, 160 S. W. Rep., 77; Ex Parte Young, 222 id., 242, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable Charles L. Brachfield. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to rape; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited: McCullough v. State, 47 S. W. Rep., 990. On question of tracks: Campbell v. State, 15 Tex. Crim. App., 506; Rucker v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 222; Burch v. State, 49 id., 13. On question of intent; Steiner v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 291, Blount v. State, 34 id., 640.

Tried below before the Honorable G. O. Bateman. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of description of money: Kirk v. State, 35 id., 224; Green v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 495.

Tried below before the Honorable J. R. Warren. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, eight years imprisonment in the penitentiary, with intermediate sentence. The opinion states the case. On question of threats by the defendant against the deceased: Godwin v. State, 43 S. W. Rep., 336 Holley v. State, 46 id., 39; Fossett v. State, 55 id., 497; Strange v. State, 43 id., 551; and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable W. S. Anderson. Appeal from a conviction of keeping and being interested in keeping a gambling place, etc.; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

<p>1. — Manufacturing, etc., Intoxicating Liquor — Indictment—Duplicitous Pleading.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of manufacturing and possessing intoxicating liquor not for medicinal, etc., purposes, the .count submitted charged that the defendant manufactured and possessed the liquor in question, the same was duplicitous pleading and bad upon motion to quash, the offenses being-separate and distinct. Following Todd v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 99.</p> <p>2. — Same—Rehearing—Separate Offenses — Pleading.</p> <p>Where, upon motion for rehearing, the State contended that manufacturing liquor and possessing liquor, though made separate offenses, by the so-called Dean Act, necessarily involved each other, and could be alleged in the same count, held: that such contention is untenable. Distinguishing Nicholas v. State, 5 S- W. Rep., 241, and other cases, and each of these offenses does not necessarily involve the other.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Joel R. Bond. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited: Polk v. State, 131 S. W. Rep., 581; Hollingsworth v. State, 189 S. W. Rep., 488.

Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Ely. Appeal from a habeas. corpus proceeding denying bail. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Grayson, Tried below before the Honorable Silas Hare.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of insufficiency of indictment: Hardin v. State, 211 S. W. Rep., 233; Salter v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 591.</p> <p>On question of absence'of defendant: Bell v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 436; Derden v. State, 56 id., 396; Hill v. State, 54 id., 646.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable J. H. Milam. Appeal from a conviction of rape upon a person mentally diseased,, etc.; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of confession: Nolan v. State, 129 S. W. Rep., 1108; Robert v. State, 228 id., 230; Sharp v. State, 197 id., 207. On question of impeaching witness: Howe v. State, 177 S. W-Rep., 497.

' Appeal from the County Court of Williamson. Tried below before the Honorable F. D. Love. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying, a pistol; penalty, a fine of $100. The opinion states the case. On question of traveller. Cases cited in-opinion. Cited; Sanders v. State, 20 S. W. Rep., 556, and cases cited in opinion.

<p>1. — Theft—Evidence—Confession.</p> <p>The statement in the confession as to defendant’s coming and going was explanatory of his presence in Ft. Worth, his home, as stated by him, being in the State of Oklahoma, and there was no error in its admission; nor was there any error because of- the promise of the police officer to use hi influence to secure a suspended sentence.</p> <p>Z. — Same—Plea of Guilty — Evidence—Confession—Punishment.</p> <p>Where defendant pleaded gulity to theft, there was no error in admitting his confession as a whole, as the amount of punishment for the offense was within the discretion of the jury, following Woodall v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 516.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Geo. E. Hosey. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, eight years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Intoxicating Liquors — Possession—Suspended Sentence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of having in possession intoxicating liquors in violation of the law, the defendant filed his plea for suspended sentence, and supported the same by legal evidence, whereupon the trial court declined to submit the issues to the jury, defendant duly excepting, and presenting a requested charge, the same is reversible error. Following Carr v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 345.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County. Tried below before the Honorable Geo. E. Hosey.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than twenty years.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Robt. B. Seay. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Murder — Life-Imprisonment—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, no fundamental error appeared, the judgment must be affirmed in the absence of a statement of facts and bill of exceptions.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of assault to murder; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Spencer. Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

From Harrison County. Original habeas corpus proceedings, in which relator sought re- . lease from arrest by reason of the revocation of a proclamation for parole by the Governor of the State. The opinion states the case. Cited: Alvarez v. State, 111 Am. St. Rep., 102; Re William Riddley, 26 L. R. A., 110; State v. Horne, 7 L. R. A. 719. Ex parte Hornie, L. R. A., 1915.

<p>1. — Murder—Principals—Charge of Court — Rule Stated.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence showed that the defendant was present when the deceased was killed, knowing the unlawful purpose of his companions who also engaged in the killing, he aided and encouraged them, the court properly charged on the law of principals under Article 78, Penal Code. Following Middleton v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 307.</p> <p>2. — Conspiracy—Circumstantial Evidence — Intent.</p> <p>A conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and the intent to kill, etc., may be shown by defendant’s conduct at the time of the homicide. Following Cox v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 254.</p> <p>3. — Same—Conspiracy—Evidence—Rule Stated — Res Gestae — Co-conspirator.</p> <p>Where there is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, the acts and declarations of each conspirator done in the prosecution and furtherance of the common design, or which form a part of the res gestae of any act designed to advance the object of the conspiracy which is already in evidence, are admissible against any or all of the conspirators. Following Richards v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 400.</p> <p>4. — Same—Declarations and Acts of Co-Defendant — Evidence.</p> <p>The evidence of the acts and declarations of a co-defendant in his conduct towards deceased before leaving the place of the dance was properly received, as they were circumstances supporting the inference that he heard it. Besides, this was shown by other testimony.</p> <p>5. — Same—Evidence—Other Offenses — Co-Conspirators—Res Gestae — Intent.</p> <p>That the conduct of co-defendants in furtherance of the common design constituted other violations of the law, did not render it unavailable to the State, under the rule of excluding extraneous offenses, they being part of the res gestae and showing the intent. Following English v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 190, and other cases.</p> <p>6. — Same—Manslaughter—Charge of Court — Precedent.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the charge of the court on manslaughter, when considered in the light of the record and other paragraphs of the charge, and that of former precedent, the same was sufficient, there was no reversible error. Following Moore v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 624, 228 S. W. Rep., 221.</p> <p>7. — Same—Requested Charges — Converse Proposition — Principals.</p> <p>Where the requested charges offered, under the subject of manslaughter, were but a repetition of matters covered by the main charge, and not adapted to supply, any defect in the charge upon that subject due to an inadequate submission of the converse of the proposition, therein contained, they were correctly refused, and the same may be said on the subject of principals.</p> <p>8. — Charge of Court — Self-Defense—Abandonment—Manslaughter—Requested Charge.</p> <p>In connection with the charge upon self-defense, and manslaughter, there was no impropriety in charging upon the law of abandonment of the difficulty by the deceased; however, upon another trial the question of self-defense which undertakes to state the circumstances upon which the deceased might have been found to have acted in self-defense, should be omitted, and the charge on continuing danger, under the facts should be submitted, but not in the language contained in the requested charges.</p> <p>9. — Same—Charge of Court — Self-Defense—Defense of Another — Reversible Error.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the court gave a charge applying the principle of self-defense to the theory arising from the evidence, that if defendant took part in the homicide, and was acting in defense of his brother who had been fired upon and shot by the deceased, he should be acquitted, but the evidence raised the issue of self-defense applicable to the defendant himself, and the court failed to charge on the law of self-defense applicable to the defendant in defending his own person, the same was reversible error. Following Knight v. State, 84 Texas Crim. Rep., 396, and other cases.</p> <p>10. — Same—Defendant as a Witness — Charge of Court — Practice .in Trial Court — Bill of Rights.,</p> <p>Our statute gives the defendant the privilege of testifying in his own behalf, and when he does so, he becomes a witness and is subject to all the tests of truth that are applied to other witnesses, and when he testifies to facts which, if true, excuse or mitigate the offense, with which he is charged, no judge has the authority to decide that his testimony is false, but the jury must pass upon its credibility under a proper charge of the court. This is demanded under the Bill of Rights which provides the right of trial by jury to remain inviolate.</p>

H. Milam. Appeal from a conviction of perjury; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Conceded error and cited cases in opinion.

<p>Robbery — Firearm—Habeas Corpus — Bail.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of habeas corpus proceedings, bail was denied in the lower court where relators were charged with robbery by fireams, this court reverses the judgment and remands the cause, and releases relator on bail.</p>

<p>Burglary — Sufficiency of the Evidence — Recent Possession.</p> <p>Possession of property recently stolen without satisfactory explanation is generally sufficient to justify a conviction for theft, or the burglary of premises from which the property is taken, and the matter of the credibility of witnesses, etc., is a question of fact for the jury, and there is no reversible error in the instant case. Following Nightengale v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 3, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Carl T. Harper. Appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable C. R. Pearman. Appeal from a conviction of rape; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of election by State: Dodd v. State, 201 S- W. Rep., 1016, and cases cited in opinion. Cited: Lee v. State, 162 S. W. Rep., 843; Serop v. State, 154 id., 557.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Brazos. Tried below before the Honorable W. C. Davis.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of burglary; two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited: Salas v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep. 485.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable M. B. Blair. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of drawing special venire: Moore v. State, 95 S. W. Rep., 514; Harrison v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 558, and cases cited in opinion. On question of charge on self-defense: Singleton v. State, 216 S. W. Rep., 1095; Bennett v. State, 154 id., 148; Williams v. State, 221 id., 287.

Tried below before the Honorable J. O. Woodward. Appeal from a conviction of mingling poiscn with food with intent to injure; penalty, six years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable James T. Brooks. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of ■$100, and sixty days confinment in the county jail. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Knox. Tried below before the Honorable J. H. Milam.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of perjury; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below' before the Honorable E. A. Hill. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion state the case.

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Angelina. Tried below before the Honorable John F. Robinson.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of illegally practicing medicine; penalty,, a fine of $50 and a jail sentence of 30 minutes.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Robbery — Reforming Judgment — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a convictitm of -obbery the judgment condemned the defendant to confinement for the full period of twenty-five years, but should have confined for a period of not less than five nor more than twenty-five, the same is so amended and reformed.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus — Pardon—Revocation of Pardon — Parole by Governor.</p> <p>Where the legal questions in the instant case are identical with those discussed in the previous case of Ex parte Redwine, 236 S. W. Rep. 96, and others, they need not be again considered, and the relator is remanded to custody.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. A. P. Dohoney. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, life imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully having in his possession equipment for. the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited; House v. State, 171 S. W. Rep., 206, and cases cited in opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable M. S. Munson. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year. The opinion states the case. On question of corroboration: Eddens v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 529, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of ownership: Jones v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 126; Lucas v. State, 36 id., 397. On question of definition of offense; cases cited in opinion. Cited: Bailey v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 1.

<p>• Appeal from the District Court of Nueces. Tried below before the Honorable Walter F. Timón.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of theft of a horse; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Prentice Oltorf. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine 'of $500. The opinion states the case. On question of evidence relating to bank loans: Jupe v. State, 217 S. W. Rep., 1041; Faubian v. State, 203 id., 898. On question of court’s charge on self-defense: Jupe v. State, 217 S. W. Rep., 1041; Smith v. State, 135 id., 152; Little v. State, 135 id., 120; Hix v. State, 102 id., 405; Price v. State, 79 id., 540.

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Knox. Tried below before the Honorable J. M. Morgan.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of wilful obstruction of a street; penalty, a fine of $100.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson.</p> <p>Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding denying bail. The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited: Ex parte Parker, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 486, and cases cited in opinion.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robert B. Seay.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of procuring; penalty, a fine of $200 and six months imprisonment in the county jail.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion. R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Tried below before the Honorable Charles T. Brachfield. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary, with recommendation for suspended sentence. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion, also Williams v. State, 227 S. W. Rep. 316.

<p>1. — Aggravated Assault — Charge of Court — Self-Defense.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of aggravated assault, the court, in his charge to the jury fell into the error of making the defendant’s right of self-defense depend upon an assault made upon him by the party injured of a character which led defendant to believe that he was likely to suffer death or serious bodily injury, the same was reversible error. Following Kingslow v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 430.</p> <p>2. — Charge of Court — Provoking Difficulty.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of aggravated assault, the defendant excepted to the charge of the court upon the ground that it nowhere gave the jury a proper rule by which they might determine what was meant by the court by the term “wrongful act,” etc., and submitted at the same time a proper requested charge, which was refused, the same was reversible error. Following Mason v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 642.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding asking release under an indictment found by a grand jury composed of ten men and two women. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable F. E. Wilcox. Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years.imprisonment in the penitentiary.

From Brewster County. Original application for habeas corpus, asking discharge of relator who was convicted of a felony. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion. Cited: Woolen v. State, 150 S. W. Rep., 1165.

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal. from a conviction of having in possession equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating' liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of indictment: Cited Burciago v. State, 228 S. W. Rep., 562; Henzen v. State, 137 id., 1141.

<p>1. — Murder—Manslaughter—Venire—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for other rea- < sons, the question as to irregularities in drawing the venire need not be considered.</p> <p>2. — Same—Jury and Jury Law — Practice in Trial Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, defendant requested that the jurors as selected be retired from the courtroom, and not be permitted to hear the examination of other veniremen, his request should have been granted. Following Crowe v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 142, and other cases.</p> <p>3. — Same—Circumstantial Evidence — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder and a conviction of manslaughter, the evidence showed that the defendant could only have been guilty as a principal upon circumstantial evidence, it was reversible error in the court’s failure to submit a charge on circumstantial evidence. Following Early v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 344, and other cases.</p> <p>4. — Same—Defensive Theory — Charge of Court — Requested Charge.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder and a conviction of manslaughter, the evidence showed that defendant took no part in the dispute of his co-defendant and the deceased, and that his acts and conduct were based upon another motive, and that this constituted defendant’s theory of defense, the same should have been affirmatively submitted as requested.</p> <p>5. — Same—Provoking the Difficulty — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder and a conviction of manslaughter, the evidence raised the issue of provoking the difficulty, the court correctly submitted a charge thereon, and there was no reversible error on that ground.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill. Appeal from a conviction of felony theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Hon. J. R. McClellan. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion. Cited: Campbell v. State, 123 S. W. Rep., 583; Ice v. State, 208 id., 343.

■ Appeal from the District Court of Franklin. Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquors, etc.; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable Guy Rogers. Appeal from a conviction of wilful neglect to support and maintain defendant’s wife; penalty, a fine of $100 and thirty days in jail. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully having possession of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

From Stephens County. Original application for writ of habeas corpus asking release from custody. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Reeves. Tried below before the Honorable Chas. Gibbs.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of a fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>On question of written charge: Carr v. State, 5 Texas Crim. App., 153; McClain v. State, 30 id., -482, and cases cited in opinion.</p> <p>On question of insufficient indictment: Wallace et al. v. Bagley et al. 26 S. W. Rep., 519.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction-of rape;-penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

From Williamson County. Original application for habeas corpus asking release from the penitentiary by virtue of a judgment of the criminal District Court of Williamson County. The opinion states the case.

<p>1. — Intoxicating Liquors — Possession—Grand ' Jury — Indictment.</p> <p>Where the indictment was returned at the May term of the District Court, which began on the second day of that month, and it appeared from the record that at a previous term of the court jury commissioners were duly appointed, and returned to the clerk in due time, the names of the persons selected as grand jurors for said May term, but the envelope containing this list was not opened until the 23d day of May, under the express direction of the judge, and it was shown that the grand jurors possessed the qualifications required by law, there was no reversible error. Distinguishing Woolen v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 189.</p> <p>2. — Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence — Possession—Burden of Proof.</p> <p>Upon trial of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, it is contemplated by the statute that to authorize a conviction there should be proof that the accused had actual, personal care, control and management of the intoxicating liquor, and where in the instant case, in which the evidence was wholly circumstantial, this requirement of the statute was not fulfilled, . the verdict of guilty was unwarranted; particularly so in view of the amendment of the statute upon which the conviction was founded, where the possession can only become unlawful if the intoxicating liquor was held for the purpose of sale, and the burden of proof is on the State.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable M. C. Jeffrey. Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding asking release from an extradition warrant issued by the governor of the State. The opinion states the case. On question of going behind the action of- the governor: Ex parte Cheatam, 95 S. W. Rep., 1077; Ex Parte Jones, 199 id., 1110. On question that petitioner must be in demanding State at time of offense; Hibbler v. State, 43 Texas, 201. Ex parte Cheatam, 95 5. W. Rep., 1078.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Freestone. Tried below before the Honorable A. M. Blackmon.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of theft of hogs; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of bolstering up testimony: Gribble v. State, 210 S. W. Rep., 215; Scott v. State, 160 id., 960; Rogers v. State, 225 id., 57.</p> <p>On question of contradicting witness: Campbell v. State, 224 S. W. Rep., 899; Sine v. State, 215 id., 967, and cases cited in opinion.</p> <p>Cited cases in opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable L. D. Guinn. Appeal from a conviction of theft over the value of $50. Penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Honorable S. G. Tayloe.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable J. R. McClellan. Appeal from a conviction of theft of turkeys; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of accomplice testimony: Buchanan v. State, 24 S. W. Rep., 895; Johnson v. State, 32 id., 1041. On question of requested charges: Burrus v. State, 172 S. W. Rep., 981; Gentry v. State, 136 id., 50.

<p>1. — Motor Vehicle — Highway—Driver Rendering Necessary Aid — Validity of Statute.</p> <p>Article 820-m, supplement to Vernon’s Penal Code, is valid with certain interpretations and limitations. Following Scott v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 100.</p> <p>2. — Same—Charge of Court — Knowledge of Collision — Statutes Construed.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of a violation of Article 820-m, supplement to Vernon’s Penal Code, requiring that when an automobile strikes a person the driver shall stop and render necessary aid, the defendant contended that there, was error in the court’s charge in failing to submit to the jury, under the facts in the instant case, the defendant’s knowledge of collision, and the trial court took the view that under the statute, under which this prosecution was had knowledge or intent on the part of the defendant was not a part of the offense; held, that such charge in the instant case, under the facts, was reversible error.</p> <p>3. — Same—Statutes Construed — Want of Knowledge of Collision.</p> <p>The verbiage of the statute, Article 820-m, supra, is such as to necessarily imply that want of knowledge of the collision would excuse a compliance with the statute. Following Scott v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., J00, recently decided.</p> <p>4. — Same—Knowingly—Charge of Court — Statutes Construed.</p> <p>It is true that the word “knowingly” is not included in the Act of the Legislature, and doubtless, for the court to instruct upon that subject in every case would be unnecessary; but in a case, like the present one, when the evidence leaves the question of defendant’s knowledge of the accident in a condition that the solution is a. question for the jury, it is incumbent upon the court, in response to proper exception, to instruct the jury that the want of knowledge of the accident would excuse the failure to stop and render aid. Following Vaughn v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 258, and other cases.</p> <p>5. — Same—Argument of Counsel — Inflammatory Remarks — Reversible Error.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of violating the statute requiring that when an automobile strikes a person the driver shall §top and render necessary aid, counsel for the State, in his argument to the jury, said, “This defendant is guilty of one of the most damnable murders ever committed in Dallas County. His act in murdering Mrs. -Bird Patterson by running over her with an automobile shows him to be a man regardless of social duty,” to which counsel for defendant promptly objected, and requested a charge withdrawing it, of which the court took no notice, the same was reversible error; although there was no written request to charge the jury to disregard said argument. Following Flores v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 107 and other cases.</p> <p>6. — Same—Argument of Counsel — Case Stated — Reversible Error.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of neglect or failure to render necessary aid after striking a person with an automobile, etc., counsel for the State remarked that defendant was guilty of a damnable murder, etc., its obvious tendenev was to divert the minds of the jury from the real issue, and to bring them to the belief that it was within their province and duty 'to punish the defendant for the death of the deceased, the same was improper and reversible error. Following Gusters v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 181, and other cases.</p>

<p>Receiving Stolen Property — Name of Person Unknown.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of fraudulently receiving stolen property, the indictment alleged that the person from whom the property was received was unknown to the grand jury, but the State introduced no testimony to show that the grand jury made any investigations concerning said name, and it was made affirmatively to appear from the record on appeal that knowledge was available to the grand jury; that defendant claimed he had received said property from a certain party at the time of his arrest, etc., the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. Following Jorasco v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 238, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Joel R. Bond. Appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors; penalty; one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited; West 1. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 209.^

<p>1. — Misdemeanor Theft — Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the record on appeal showed that defendant was found in possession of recently stolen property, and did not explain its possession in a reasonable manner, the conviction is sustained. Following Roberts v. State. 17 Texas Crim. App., 82, and other cases.</p> <p>2. — Same—Requested Charges — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the requested charges in a misdemeanor case will not be considered on appeal. Following Barrios v. State, 83 Texas Crim'. Rep., 548.</p> <p>3. — Same—Recent Possession — Rule Stated.</p> <p>It is the rule that the possession of property shown by the evidence to have been recently stolen is sufficient when unexplained, or explained in a manner that is not reasonable and probably true to support the inference of guilt of theft. Following Cabral v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 304, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable E. W. Coleman. Appeal from a conviction of negligent homicide; penalty, a fine of $1000. The opinion states the case. On question of construction of statute and insufficiency of information : Talbot v. State, 125 S. W. Rep., 906; Chant v. State, 166 id., 513. On question of testimony with reference to intoxicating liquors: Draper v. State, 22 Texas, 400; Saddler v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 195.

Tried below before the ’ Honorable Geo. E. Holland. Appeal from a conviction of having in possession equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Tried below before the .Honorable W. S. Anderson.- Appeal from a conviction of rape by threats; penalty, death. The opinion states the case. On question of submission of evidence by witness Ellison; Hoy v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 340.

Tried below before the Honorable L. D. Guinn. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited: Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S., 383; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S., 616; Amos v. U. S., U. S. Advanced Sheets, Page 316; 1920-21. Cited: Roberts v. State, recently decided.

Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable J. R. McClellan. Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. -On question of confessions: Nolan v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 4426; Clark v. State, 207 S.rW. Rep., 98. On question of insanity: Williams v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 348; Hazelwood v. State, 186 S. W. Rep., 201; Barton v. State, 230 id., 991; Taylor v. State, 227 id., 684.

Tried below befpre the Honorable F. J. Reese. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $500. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable F. D. Love. Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $50 and sixty days imprisonment in the county jail. . The opinion states the case. Cited: Johnson v. State, 60 S. W. Rep., 667.

Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill. Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding denying bail in a capital case. Cited: Ex Parte Russell, 160 S. W., 75; Ex Parte Rewellyn, 229 id., 327; Ex Parte Young, 222 id., 242. Cited Ex Parte Harris, recently decided.

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robert B. Seay.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable F. D. Love. Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy, under Article 634, Vernon’s C. P.; penalty, a fine of $50. The opinion states the case. Cited: Bennett v. State, 205 S. W. Rep., 987.

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Harrison. Tried below before the Honorable W. H. Strength.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of $100.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of insufficient jurat: Goodman v. State, 212 S. W., 171, and cases cited in opinion. . On question of preparing written charge: Abrigo v. State, 178 S. W. Rep., 518.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable C. E. DuBois. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court Of Stephens. Tried before the Honorable W. R. Ely.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of embezzlement; penalty, two years and six months imprisonment in the penitentiary. -</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable H. F. O’Neal. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, forty years imprisonment in the penitentiary. On question of court's charge on self-defense: Haymon v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 263; Wilson v. State, 46 id., 527. On question of conduct of defendant towards State’s witnesses: Jackson v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 85; Pool v. State, 45 id., 348; Tewellan v. State, 33 id., 412.

Tried below before the Honorable John F. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty a fine of $25. The opinion states the case. On question of deadly weapon: Skidmore v. State, 43 Texas, 94; Key v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 506; Teague v. State, 206 S. W. Rep., 193; Hardin v. State, 13 Texas Crim. App., 192; Kosmoroski v. State, 59 Texas, Crim. Rep., 296, and other cases.

Tried below before the Honorable Geo. B. Hall. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

. Appeal from the District Court of Armstrong. Tried below before the Honorable H. S. Bishop. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of argument of counsel: Shaw v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 474; Flores v. State, 60 id., 25; Deary v. State, 62 id., 352; Miller v. State, 45 id., 517.

Tried below before the Honorable Prentice Oltorf. Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of confession and corpus delicti: Eckert v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 10.5.

Tried below before the Honorable M. S. Munson. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, thirty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of court’s charge on self-defense: Wood v. State, 11 S. W. Rep., 678; O’Connor v. State, 13 id., 14; Floyd v. State, 16 id., 188. On question of refusing defendant’s requested charge: Ballard v. State, 138 id., 122; Irving v. State, ISO id., 611; Red v. State, 39 Texas Crim.

Tried below before the Honorable Robert G. Street. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. - - - The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Angelina. Tried below before the Honorable L. D. Guinn.</p> <p>Appeal from the conviction of unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. - ■ *- . ' " '</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Habeas Corpus — Companion Case — Practice on Appeal:</p> <p>Where appellant was admitted to bail while he was charged by complaint, and afterwards was indicted for the same offense, and bail again refused in the lower court, without any additional facts, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.</p>

<p>Tried below before the Honorable H. F. Weldon. Habeas corpus , proceedings denying bail. - -</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Guy Rogers. Appeal from a conviction of wife desertion, etc.; penalty, a fine of $50 and thirty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable J. R. Warren. Appeal from a conviction of the possession of intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable J. R. McClellan. Appeal from a conviction of perjury; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

<p>Appeal from the County Court At. Law No. 2, of Harris County. Tried below before the Honorable Roy F. Campbell.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of keeping a disorderly house; penalty, a fine of $200, and confinement in the county jail for twenty days.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Murder — Misconduct of Jury — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction • of murder, it appeared from the record that the jury while deliberating upon their verdict received evidence which was not before them during the progress of the trial, and that this influenced the verdict of the jury, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. Following Gilbert v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 597, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the . Honorable C. A. Pippen. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Habeas Corpus — Bail—Rule Stated.</p> <p>In an appeal denying bail in a capital case, the proof must not only show that the accused is guilty, but that the jury would, if they enforced the law, assess capital punishment, under a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment, etc., and also show conclusively that deceased came to his death at the hands of the accused, and bail must be granted in the instant case, which is now here done, in the sum of $5,000. Following Ex Parte Smith, 23 Texas Crim. App., 125, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable M. Kennon. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to rape; penalty, fifty years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable J. O. Woodward. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of theft of a check for $1,000, under false pretext and with fraudulent intent to appropriate the same; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable J. A. Nabers. Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Chapman. Appeál from a conviction of murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of officer with jury: Lester v. Hayes, 38 S. W. Rep., 52; Sargent v. Roberts, 1 Pick, 337; Holiday v. Sampson, 95 S. W. Rep., 643; Texas-Midland Rye Co. v. Byrd, 115 S- W. Rep., 1163; Corpus Christi Street & Interurban Ry. Co. v. Kjellberg, 185 S. W. 430; Quigley v. G. C. & S. F. Ry.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Upshur. • Tried below before the Honorable J. R. Warren.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors;-penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Hugh Carney. Appeal from a conviction of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating, liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of testimony about finding the still: Youman v. Com., 234 S. W. Rep.,, 860. On question of charge and burden of proof: Todd v. State, 229 SW. Rep., 516; Burciago v. State, 228 id., 562. On question of prohibitionist on jury: Vellareal v. State, 189 S. W.. Rep., 156.

2 of Harris County. Tried below before the. Honorable Roy F. Campbell. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $300. The opinion states the case. On question of charge of court: Whitcomb v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 269; Novy v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 496; Bowman v. State, 164 S. W. Rep., 846.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Clay. Tried below before the Honorable H. F. Weldon.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $450.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>On question of requested charges: Stanton v. State, 29 S. W. Rep., 476; Atkinson v. State, 138 id., 125.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable James R. Hamilton. Appeal from a conviction of abortion; penalty, two years in the penitentiary. On question of venue: Fondren v. State, 169 S. W. Rep., 411, and cases cited in opinion.

<p>1. — Wife Desertion — Information—Motion to Quash.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of wife desertion, the defendant moved to quash the information on various grounds, but the information not being subject to the criticism addressed to it, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>2. — Same—Requested Charges — Practice in Trial Court.</p> <p>Where it did not appear from the record on appeal that the requested1 charges were presented to the court prior to the reading of the main charge, there was no reversible error. Following Oliver v. State, 58 Texas Crim, Rep. 50.</p> <p>3. — Same—Evidence—Hearsay—Reversible Error.</p> <p>Where, upon trial for wife desertion, defendant denied that he had left his wife, and it appeared from the record on appeal that the only reason supporting the judgment of conviction was that the defendant’s wife refused to go to her home because she had been told by the wife of defendant’s brother that defendant was not going to live with her any more, etc., the same was hearsay evidence and reversible error.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Charles L. Brachfield. Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

, Tried below before the Honorable Chas. L. Brachfield. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Kendall. Tried below before the Honorable J. A. Phillip.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the Tick Eradication Law; penalty, a fine of. $25.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>1. — Bigamy—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of bigamy, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>2. — Same—Charge of Court — Requested Charges — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where it nowhere appeared in the record that either the requested charges or the objection to the charge of the court were filed before the main charge was read to the jury, or were ever called to the court’s attention, they cannot be considered on appeal.</p>

<p>■ Intoxicating Liquors — Possession—Repeal of Law.</p> <p>‘ By the Second Called Session of the Thirty-seventh Legislature,' amending the prohibition law, it is not now an offense to possess intoxicating liquor unless the same is for the purpose of sale, and this must be alleged and proved, following Cox v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 256, recently decided.</p>

<p>1. — Intoxicating Liquors — Possession—Sale—Charge of Court — Election—Acquittal.</p> <p>Where the indictment charged two counts, one for unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and the other the unlawful possession of such liquor, and the court limited the jury to a finding upon the offense charged in the second count, this was tantamount to an acquittal of the offense, charged in the first count. Following Betts v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 631, and other cases.</p> <p>2. — Same—Repeal of Law — Possession—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>The offense of possessing intoxicating liquor as defined by the Dean Law prior to the amendment thereof was so changed as to amount to a repeal of the former law, and the case must be reversed and dismissed. Following Cox v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 356, recently decided, and other cases.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Burns. Appeal from a conviction of illegally practicing medicine without filing the proper certificate, etc.; penalty, a fine of $50 and one hour in jail. The opinion states the case. On question of sufficiency of the indictment: Byrd v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 242; Young v. State, 61 id., 440.

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robert B. Seay.</p> <p>Appeal from a misdemeanor conviction of embezzlement; penalty, a fine of $100 and ten days in the county jail.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below before the Honorable F. L. Wilson.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of adultery by living together, etc.; penalty, u fine of $200.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction of statutory rape; penalty, nine years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in. opinion.

<p>1. — Burglary—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of burglary, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error on that ground.</p> <p>2. — Same—Remarks by Judge — Bill of Exceptions — Suspended Sentence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of burglary, while the jury panel was being examined and questioned upon the issue of suspended sentence, the court in sentencing another defendant convicted of burglary severely criticised his act and that his sentence was suspended, etc., which, had objection been made at the proper time, would have constituted reversible error, yet the bill of exceptions presenting this matter falling short of showing error, there was no reversible error in the instant case.</p> <p>3. — Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions — Suspended Sentence.</p> <p>Where the evidence complained of in a certain bill of exceptions was admissible on the issue of suspended sentence, and another bill of exceptions was not sufficiently full to enable this court to review it, there is no reversible error.</p> <p>4. — Same—Other Offenses — Evidence—Hearsay.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of burglary, the owner of the burglarized house testified that no goods or property of any kind were taken from the house, but that some of the merchandise had been disarranged, etc., it was reversible error to permit the officer to testify, over objection of defendant, that when defendant was arrested there was found in his suit case a box of neck-ties, etc., and the alleged owner was recalled then and testified that a week before the present burglary his store was entered and twelve dollars worth of nickels and dimes taken, but it developed that this was hearsay testimony, and no other offense was in fact proved to have been committed by the defendant.</p> <p>5. — Same—Rule Stated — Intent—Other Offenses Must he Proved.</p> <p>Where intent becomes an issue, proof of other offenses throwing light upon the question is permissible, but before permissible, it must be shown that a prior crime was in fact committed, and with reasonable certainty that the accused was the guilty party. Following Denton v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 437, and other cases.</p> <p>6. — Same—General Reputation — Evidence.</p> <p>Upon trial, of burglary, while defendant was testifying he was asked if he did not at one time give a certain check with another’s name signed to it, and was also asked about other offenses, and it appeared in the record on appeal that neither of the incidents testified to were ever merged into a legal complaint against him, the same was reversible error.</p> <p>7. — Same—General Reputation — Rule Stated — Suspended Sentence — Specific Acts.</p> <p>The suspended sentence law opens the way for the State to prove the general reputation of accused where the issue of suspended sentence is presented by him; but the method of proving general reputation and the limitations incident to it were not changed thereby, and the' reputation of deceased is to be proved not by specific acts of misconduct, but by competent evidence to show whether his reputation is good or bad. Following Johnson v. State, recently decided.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable M. C. Jeffrey. Appeal from a conviction of passing a forged instrument; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of intent to defraud, etc., Whitmire v. State, 156 S. W. Rep., 1179; McKay v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 233; Fench v. State, 60 id., 432. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of court’s charge: Bond v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 421, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable J. R. Warren, Appeal from a conviction of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

. Appeal from the District Court of El Paso. Tried below before the Honorable W. D. Howe. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable Charles L. Brachfield. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable Joel R. Bond. Appeal from a conviction under the local option law for unlawful transportation of liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment .in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable J. A. Sommerlatte. Appeal from a conviction of using abusive language; penalty, a fine of $25. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable J. O. Woodward. Appeal from a conviction of burglaiy; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable F. D. Love. Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of $1000. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable M. S. Munson. Appeal from a conviction of theft of cattle; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited: Bryan v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 196; Odell v. State, 44 id., 310; Mangum v. State, 38 id., 331; House v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 238, and cases cited in opinion. Cited Fleischman v. State, 231 S. W. Rep., 397.

Tried below before the Honorable J. R. McClellan. Appeal from a conviction of theft of turkeys over the value of $50; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of value: Johnson v. State, 122 S. W. Rep., 877; Martinez v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 122.

Tried below before the Honorable P. A. Martin. Appeal from a conviction of swindling; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of insufficiency of the evidence: McDaniel v. State, 140 S. W. Rep., 232, and cases stated in the opinion.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Rockwall. Tried below before the Honorable Joel R. Bond.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction under the local option law for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p> <p>—Cited: Mclnturf v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 235; Colloway v. State, 7 id., 585.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Guy Rogers. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $100. The opinion states the case. On question of deadly weapon: Danforth v. State, 69 S. W. Rep., 159; Tolston v. State, 225 id., 1098, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark. Appeal from a conviction of statutory rape; penalty, fifteen years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of peremptory charge to acquit: Blackmon v. State, 220 S. W. Rep., 93; Galaviz v. State, 198 id., 946. On question of refusing requested charges: Jones v. State, 216 S. W. Rep., 884; McCormick v. State, 216 id., 871. ■

<p>Unlawful Possession of Intoxicating Liquors — Suspended Sentence — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, evidence was introduced in support of defendant’s plea for suspended sentence, and it was shown without controversy that defendant had not previously been convicted of a felony in this or any other State, the court’s failure to submit a charge thereon was reversible error. Following Carr v. State, 89 Texas Crisn. Rep., 245.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Prentice Oltorf. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, death. The opinion states the case. On question of written pleading and two days preparation: Harris v. State, 169 S. W. Rep., 657. ' On question of misconduct of jury: Hilliard v. State, 222 S. W. Rep., 553; Luman v. State, 216 id., 395; Gilbert v. State, 215 id., 106; Kirkpatrick v. State, 211 id., 230; Weaver v. State, 210 id., 698; McDougal v. State, 194 id., 944.

- Appeal from the County Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Honorable Giles P. Lester. Appeal from a conviction of failure to support defendant’s infant child; penalty, six months confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case. On question of venue: Garrett v. State, 135 S. W. Rep., 532.

Tried below before the Honorable Irwin T. Ward. 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 statement of facts by question and answer; Felder v. State, 59 Texas Grim. Rep., 144. Hargrave v. State, 53 id., 147; Mooney v. State, 73 id., 123.

Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Spencer. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $400.00. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Milam. Tried below before the. Honorable John Watson.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable John W. Lewis. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, sixty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable J. O. Woodward. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable W. B. Clark. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $100 and twelve months in the county jail.' The opinion states the case. Davis v. State, 114 S. W. Rep., 366; Jones v. State, 229 id., 865, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, ninety-nine years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark. Appeal from a conviction of the unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable F. D. Love. Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $25 and thirty days imprisonment in the county jail. The opinion states the case. Cited: Joiner v. State, 232 S. W. Rep., 333.'

<p>1. — Intoxicating Liquors — Sale—Accomplice Testimony — Corroboration—Rule Stated.</p> <p>It is statutory that no matter how much credence the jury may give to the testimony of one who is an accomplice or to any number who are accomplices, the accused cannot be convicted on such testimony, unless there be corroborative evidence which in and of itself tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows that a crime has been committed; and applying this rule to the instant case, the evidence falls short of a sufficiency of the testimony to corroborate the accomplices.</p> <p>'2. — Same—Rehearing—Corpus D elicti — Corroboration—Circumstantial Evidence — Identification.</p> <p>Where the offense is proved by accomplices, the conviction cannot be sustained unless their testimony of the corpus delicti is corroborated, and there is other testimony tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. Following Slaughter v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 527, and other cases, and where the evidence is circumstantial, and the identity of the defendant is left in doubt, the conviction cannot be sustained.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. G. A. Platt. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Pruitt v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 129; Davis v. State, 15 id., 475.

Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, twenty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of continuance: Covey v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 388; Land v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 330; Gaines v. State, 150 5. W. Rep., 199.

Tried below before the Honorable Irvin T. Ward. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of charge of court on apparent danger: Carlisle v. State, 232 S. W. Rep., 824.

Appeal' from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below befot e the Honorable S. G. Tayloe. Appeal from a conviction of incest; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of accomplice testimony: Stewart v. State, 32 S. W. Rep., 766; Gillispie v. State, 93 id., 556; Bohannon v. State, 204 id., 1165.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of El Paso. Tried below before the Honorable W. D. Howe.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Prentice Oltorf. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of charge of accomplice: Baggett v. State, 151 S: W. Rep., 560; Crawford v. State, 34 id., 927, and cases cited in opinion. On question of accomplice testimony: Adams v. State, 141 S. W. Rep., 527. and cases cited in opinion.

<p>1. — Murder—Continuance—Motion for New Trial — Diligence—Rule Stated— Affidavit.</p> <p>If diligence is shown and the absent testimony appears material and probably true, and of such character as that same might have produced a different result, a new trial should be granted, and where, as in the instant case, the absent witness made affidavit that he would have sworn to the facts stated in the application, the question of probable truth of such testimony is no longer one for the decision of the trial cpurt. Following Baines v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 510, and other cases.</p> <p>2. — Same—Deadly Weapon — Charge of Court — Requested Charge.</p> <p>Where, upon -trial of murder, there was a sharp contention as to whether the deceased had a pistol and was making any attack or demonstration with it when he was shot, a requested charge presenting the principle embodied in Article 1106, P. C., was correctly refused, inasmuch as the main charge presented all the theory of defense in the requested charge.</p> <p>3. — Same—Argument of Counsel — Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>While this court refrains from a '.iscussion of the argument of private prosecutor, as the same will not likely occur again, it, in the meantime, urges the necessity for care in the argument of counsel.</p> <p>4. — Same—Evidence—Immaterial Matter — Impeaching Witness.</p> <p>Where the impeaching testimony was upon an immaterial matter, it should not have been admitted in evidence, and after the elimination of such testimony, it will carry with it the charge of the court relating thereto, and the same need not be further discussed.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable M. B. Blair. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, 99 years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of apparent danger: Singleton v. State, 216 S. W. Rep., 1094; Bennett v. State, 194 id., 148; Hoyt v. State, 228 id., 936. On question of provoking difficulty: Burkhardt v. State, 202 S. W. Rep., 513; Carter v. State, 220 id., 335.

Tried below before the Honorable John C. Hoyo. Appeal from a conviction of illegal practice of medicine; penalty, a fine of $50. The opinion states the case. Cited: White v. State, 147 S. W. Rep., 598; Martoni v. State, 166 id., 1169.

<p>Intoxicating Liquors — Possession—Repeal of Law.</p> <p>Upon appeal from a conviction for possessing intoxicating liquors under the so-called Dean Act, the judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed as by the amendment of said Act the possession of intoxicating liquor is not an offense unless so possessed for the purpose of sale, following Petit v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 336, recently decided, and other cases.</p>

<p>Appeal flrora the District Court of Jasper. Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction -of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquors; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable Joel R. Bond. Appeal from a conviction of the sale of intoxicating liquors; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of McEennan. Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe.</p> <p>Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding for contempt.</p>

<p>Intoxicating Liquors — Possession—Repeal.</p> <p>The change in the statute upon which the prosecution was found renders it necessary to reverse the judgment. Following Francis v. State, recently decided.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable J. L. Manry. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. - - The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable M. C. Jeffrey. 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 age of prosecutrix and previous unchastity: Keck v. State, 234 S. W. Rep., 396; Robert v. State, 234 id., 89; Reeves v. State, 227 S. W. Rep., 668. R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Tried below before the Honorable E. I. Key. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a fine of $100. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable J. O. Woodward. Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of time of filing statement of facts: Hart v. State, 218 S. W. Rep., 1054.

Tried below before the Honorable F. K. Wilcox. Appeal from a conviction'of transporting intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited: Jasper v. State, 164 S. W. Rep., S51 ■; Ryan v. State, 176 id., 49; Scales v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 301.

Tried below before the Honorable W. D. Howe. Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of court’s charge: Stanley v. State, 137 S. W..Rep., 703; Matthews v. State, 155 id., 228; Powers v. State, id., 909. On question of confession: Buntain v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 485, and cases stated in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable J. C. Shipman. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully playing cards; penalty, a fine of ten dollars. The opinion states the case. Cited: Griffin v. State, 66 S. W. Rep., 782, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to rob; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable P. W. Seward. Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; a fine of twenty-five dollars and ninety days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case.

Tried below before the Honorable Nelson Eytle. Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of twenty-five dollars and thirty days confinement in the county jail.

Tried below before the Plonorable W. D. -Howe. Appeal from a conviction as an accomplice for murder; penalty, fifteen years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited cases in opinion. Cited cases in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson. Appeal from a conviction of murder: penalty, twenty-three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of corpus de-licti: Lovelady v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 545; Gay v. State, 40 Texas'Crim. Rep., 242; Southern v. State, 122 S. W. Rep., 259.

Tried below before the Honorable Richard I. Munroe. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing and transporting intoxicating liquors, etc.; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.

<p>Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robt. B. Seay.</p> <p>Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Tried below before the Honorable J. H. Arnold. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. On question of instrument used and presumption of law: Briggs v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 144; Jones v. State, 17 id., 612; Duke v. State, 120 S. W. Rep., 894; Fread v. State, 210 id., 695; Mason v. State, 228 id., 952, and cases cited in opinion.

Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark. Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to rob; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case. Cited: Bush v. State, 107 S. W. Rep., 348; Ree v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 519. Cited: Dong v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 296; Drysdale v. State, 156 S. W. Rep., 685.