The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-04-06
SYNOPSIS
or Decisions OF the commissioners or
Appeals.
Galveston Term, 1850.

reported for the Galveston News
John l. Daragh, plaintiff in error vs. Ju
Illus Kaufman OF als, defendants in error
From Galveston. Opinion by Richard )
Walker, presiding Commissioner |. Where
there Is neither n statement Of facts nor bill
of exceptions, tho judgment of the District
court will not be- revised, unless the pro
sumption In favor Of its validity Is sufficiently
repealed in tho record 10 dispense with these
means ordinarily essential TO Indicate error.
2. II 10 incumbent upon the purity seeking to
reverse u Judgment 10 oyince that IL is errone-
Gus, and unless the party complaining pre-
sonts the case In such n manner rs TO show
the error, the presumption In It's favor must
prevail. Campbell vs. Skidmorc, |
Tex, 47G; Chandler vs the State 2
Tex, 800, 3, Where there Is no states
mont Of facts nor bill of exceptions, alleged
erroneous rulings of the court in overruIing
the plaintiff exceptions to the defendants
plea of former judgment-res judieata-will
not be revised, Notwithstanding that the f.
nal judgment rendered by the court con
taiaed tho recital that "thc proofs and argu-
menl Of counsel having been heard, and il APP
pearng TO the court that the subject matter
In controversy, in this cause has been hereto
fore litigated in this court, il is therefore con-
sidered, ordered and decreed thNt tn plain
til, John l.. Darragh, take nothing by his
said suit" etc. McCmny Va. Floyd, 10
Tex. l50; Jones VS. Cavaros, % Tex, i2S;
Blackwell VS.. Patton, % Tex, GA. 4. Such
recitals, ut most, can only be taken rs evil
denco that the facts stated we're in
proof, but do not exclude the inference
that there we're other facts proved,
which aided in forming the judgment.
Wherefore, the judgment is still entitled to
all the Prescriptions INDUCED in its support
in cases where there is no statement ofall the
facts. See Chapman VS.. Sneed, II Texas,
AL 8 Chief Justice Wheeler said in Chap
man vs. Sneed (supra): sand it would be
unsafe and unprecedented to revise the judy
ment and adjudicate the cause upon the
facts when they are not before us otherwise
than in IN incomplete and partial state g.
The Commissioners of Appeals in the opin-
ion proceed, nevertheless, to notice at length
upon the merits of the questions discussed in
the brief and argument of tho appellants
counsel, the case rs it Is presented, remarking
that under their views Of the law
the result would be the same
to the appellant, that the judy
ment of the court below in overriding the
plaintiffs exceptions to the defendants plea
was not error. I. See the opinion for n full
discussion of the doctrine and rules of law
applicable TO the defense set up of res adiu
dicata to the plaintiffs case. g. 1t is sutli-
Gent that judgement is conclusive upon
every matter actually and necessarily decided
in the former suit, though not directly the
point in issue. If the facts involved in the
second suit are so cardinal that without them
the former decision can not stand, they must
be taken as conclusively settled. Freeman
on judy secs 1851 and see Aurora CITY
vs.West, 7 Wal, 81; Cook VS.. Burnley, as Tex,
81 : Girardin VS.. Dean, 40, Tex, 246; Rob-
erts vs.. johnson, AZ Tex, 1877; see also Homer
vs.. Fish, Pick, 4S5; Bgeow on Estoppels,
1l3, LOG, 1lS. ct sequitur, and 1907 Perkn vs.
Walker, 80 VT, l44.
Galveston, Houston Il Henderson Railroad
company, plaintiffs in error vs.. Emile Haag
defendant in error; from Galveston. Opin-
ion by Richard S. Walker, presiding COM
missioner. !. Suit by appellee against the
Galveston, Houston & Henderson Railroad
company, as common carriers, for failure Ia
transport from Houston and deliver at Gal
weston eighty-three head of cattle, shipped
by plaintiff on the defendants cars. Defense
Seizure thereof, after shipment, by inspec
tors of cattle for Harris county, by virtue O
his authority under act of May 90, 1871, ST
encourage stock raising, etc" and plea o.
general denial. Held, that under the plead
ings, it was admissible for the plaintiff to in
troduce evidence in rebuttsl of testmon,
offered by the pla ntiif tending to prove sucl
seizure by SAID official, to establish
the fact that said cattle were purchased il
Guadalupe county; that the cattle came from
that county, and the bill of sale of the sam,
TO the plaintiff and the certificate of the In
spector of cattle for Guadalupe county, wer
also admissible, notwithstanding the plaintiff
had not set up said facts by way Of replica
hon or supplemental petition--such evidenc
was admissible as rebutting testimony to tina
offered by the defendant. 1t tended to neg
alive and disprove the authority, under sal
act of 1871, of the Inspector of cattle 70
Harris county to exercise Jurisdiction owe
the cattle in question, and therefore 10 rebu
the defense relied on by the defendant of N
lawfulness of the alleged seizure. TGouh.
nant VS. Brisbrane. Is Tex 90. Guess va Iub
bock,,5 Tex $751; .. Objection TO III
introduction US evidence of IN
certificate Of the INSPECTOR .
Guadalupe county, because Il vas No
such acertifcate as the law authorized the in
speetor 70 make"-under such a general Of
jection--we can only determine whether
document Of that import and character l. Al
missible at all, however proved. Houston
Perry, 8 Tex. 462; Herndon We. Casiano.
Tex. 322, and other authorities cited
Q. The act of 1871 provided for the issuanc
ofsuch an original document under bis q
1cial seal for the protection of parties cor
templated by the statute "for the protectio
Of parties" 10 whom II should be issued. An
i was competent and admissible eyidenc
4 The limits Of the jurisdiction and sutbo
ny Of the inspector Of animals for HAIR
county, Il ia question oflaw, for the court an