Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 62

62 THE STATE v. BROOKS. [Tyler Term,
Syllabus.
the force of law, upon which the court should instruct a
jury. They should be left free to make up their verdict,
judging for themselves of the credibility of the witnesses
and of tlhe weight to be given to the evidence, under instructions
by the court declaring the law applicable to tlle
case, the verdict being subject to the action of the court on
a motion for a new trial.
The instructions asked by plaintiff, in substance, that
if he had proved payment of the purchase money or the
consideration, and had been put in possession of the land
under his contract of purchase by defendant, and had made
valuable improvements, should have been given to the
jury. Such acts as these, though the contract was in
parol, would take the case out of the statute of frauds requiring
contracts for the sale of land to be in writing, and
specific performance would be decreed, as this court has
frequently decided heretofore, and at the present term in
the case of Ann Berta Lodgdv. M. J. Leverton, from Anderson
county. In this case these questions, and what acts
will amount to part performance, and when specific execution
of the contract will be decreed and when not, are so
fully examined in the elaborate opinion delivered by Justice
Moore, that a reference to the case is deemed sufficient
without further citation of authorities.
For error in the charge of the court, the judgment is reversed
and remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THIE STATE V. M. N. BROOKS.
1. EMBEZZLEMENT.-See aln indictment held good for embezzlement.
2. OFFICER-DEPUTY SHERIFF.-A deputy sheriff is an officer authorized
to collect taxes, and as such is liable to indictment for embezzling
money collected by him as taxes.
3. In an indictment for embezzlement, it is not necessary to describe
the money or any piece of money so embezzled.