Case ID: tex_119/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OCTOBER, 1930
    Eugene Castle v. Brown Cracker & Candy Company.
    Application No. 17491.
    Decided October 15, 1930.
    (31 S. W., 2d Series, 630.)
    
      
      J. Cleo Thompson and W. S. Gamewell, for petitioner.
    No sufficient objection to the charge was presented by defendant. Roberson v. Hughes, 231 S. W., 734; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Maxwell, 143 S. W., 1147; Clonts v. Johnson, 294 S. W., 844; Waggoner v. Sigler Oil Co., 284 S. W., 926; Midland Natl. Bank v. Campbell, 18 S. W. (2d), 732; C. & S. Ry. Co. v. Rowe, 224 S. W., 937; Article 2185, R. C. S., 1925; Isbell v. Lennox, 295 S. W., 920; Chisos Mining Co. v. Llanez, 298 S. W., 641. Defendant in error’s bills of exception, nor any other part of the record showed that the arguments by the attorneys for plaintiff in error were not called forth by the evidence nor by the arguments, statements or remarks of the attorneys for defendant in error, but the Bills of Exception merely stated the remarks made by plaintiff in error’s attorneys in their arguments. Article 2237, Subdivision 1 of 1925 R. C. S.; Kansas City M. & O. Ry. Co. v. West, 149 S. W., 206-210; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Peters, 3 S. W. (2d), 568; Federal Life Insurance Co. v. Sweeney, 18 S. W. (2d), 702.
   Per Curiam :

While we do not think judgment properly reversed on error in charge on measure of damages, because such objection not timely presented, yet the same was properly reversed on argument of counsel as to his knowledge of plaintiff’s character.

The application for writ of error is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.