*1 charge in his The trial court neglected wilfully finding refused and support children provide children. Desertion of for the
was not submitted.
In the case we said: Jones recognized pointed “As and Gostick out the Freeman custody not and would the divorce decree award of deprive legal obligation care for father of his and moral children, having support adequate means mother furnishing adequate support.” the child’s
Having obligation, proved that he fulfil failed to discharged think the state its under the indictment burden allege charge. may court’s state several means violated, proof con- statute either will viction.
Jean Fields
Appellant’s Motion Second Davenport,
William
MORRISON, aggravated assault; punishment, The offense is the one month jail. charging appellant in was tried under an indictment assault with The lesser offense of intent to murder. included jury. to assault alone was the submitted living
Mrs. W. O. testified that had with the Willis been five-year-old appellant, appellant’s daughter, Fields, and Paula Angelo a people city some other at tourist court in the of San days prior February 4, for some few time to a and that appellant before said had certain acts date committed against daughter presence. violence her Paula in the witness’ appellant placed She stated kitchen sink that the the child in the going her, try and said child’s that she was to to drown took the on, against faucet, head and turned it water beat stomach, placed then in the caused the her foot child’s breath, brutality con- gasp child to these acts of that approximately tinued that fol- fifteen minutes. She stated lowing head, and she felt of the child’s this assault back it was “soft” and the child cried. Taylor, manager court, a testified tourist witness February appellant
that he 4, 1952, rented and another woman room girl night in the and that later on that he saw a little injuries and head. room who to her face had sustained obvious Taylor injuries as Mrs. also testified about the to Office, did who saw Miss Frances Lewis the Child Welfare day hospital. Paula the in next at the Dr. Kunath Paula Fields testified that he examined hospital midnight February He described at 1952. about findings follows: as head; face was “There extensive bruises about the were shut, completely quite swollen; eyes almost were swollen left eyes, particularly black and around around blue both in eye; bruises scalp, rather extensive bruises over the face and occipital scalp.” it, atea, that the back of intro- He of the child which also testified that accurately time portrayed her condition at the duced evidence had, that of his examination. He further days he saw inflicted several before probability, been all or probably cause death nature and were not of such child bodily injury. serious any in her testify offer behalf.
Appellant or did not find the evidence sufficient present the record. exceptions shall discuss court complains failure of the Bill of against understand appellant. If we the indictment to dismiss August contention, it had been convicted is that Loshe 27,036, (See the same child Loshe v. during decided, day page 561, the trial and that had did not of that case the show *3 attorney any injuries district inflicted child. The hearing testimony in this case was motion that the on the find no merit in the with Loshe case. not identical We bill. sufficiency questions
Bill 2 of evi- of upon already passed. dence we have By admissibility informal she of bills attacks Rep. Recently, of the child. in McFarland 159 Texas Cr. 658, pictures 133, upheld admissibility 2d of of S.W. we injured prosecution. female in an assault
Finding error, of the trial court reversible rehearing appellant’s
ON motion DAVIDSON, Judge. Willis, testimony,
Inasmuch as made a the witness guilt child, prima facie case are unable to in her contention that follow upon adduced which she con- trial of the Loshe v. State upon tends shows that required did not inflict prosecution. dismissal 561, (No. 27,036, page The facts the Loshe case destroy cannot be to overcome or used trial of this case. The adduced testimony. the state’s believe disposition remain convinced the correctness our original opinion. of this case our rehearing The motion for is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.
Francisco Gonzales Appellant’s Motion for *4 Dmenport, William
WOODLEY, marijuana, possession hav- conviction is ing punishment. assessed the minimum urged seriously contention as reversible error finding marijuana search, car an and was was obtained means of unlawful therefore inadmissible.