The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-12-08
synopsi, OF the Opinions of the Commits
sioners of Appeals.

Burris ..vs. Endy ct al; from Lamar
county. In a suit to set aside a contract for
.a,patent process for tanning leather, it was
not error to admit in evidence a pamphlet
ofdircctions for using the process Ia CON
nection with evidence of an expert that the
process was worthless. IL being admitted
that the process in question was identical
with another, II was not error TO profier in
evidence of a piece Of leather tanned by the
latter process. The admission Of such evil
dence is controlled by no absolute rule, but
of necessity Is committed to the sound dis
erection of the court, and in that event an
Appellate Court win interfere only I'm case
of'abuse. Affirmed. Watts, commissioner
Hunt vs. Wiley e Porter; from Milan
county. The statute requires that the cita-
tion shall state the date OF the filing Of the
plaintiffs petition, the file number Of the
suit, the names of all the parties and the
nature Of the plaintiffs demand. If the
citation meets the requirements copy of pc
tition Is unnecessary to constitute service.
Objection 10 SherifFs return on citation
when made in this court for the first time
comes too late. The note was signed by
John @. and NJ. A. q. and Endorsed by
Hunt. The petition showed that the
suit was not brought until the second
term after maturity, and that at that
time John q. was dead, and NJ. A. q. was
<iotoriously insolvent. Held, good show
ing why suit was not brought at first term
afler maturity. Affirmed. Quinan, com
missioner.
Alderman vs.. BOndren; from Dexar
county. As a general rule. when parties
resort 20 a written contract, parol test
mony csnnot be resOrted 10 TO vary, alter
or contrhdict IL. But such rule does not
apply when Il appears that instrument
yssfnbt intended 10 be a complete and
Anal statement Of the whole transaction, or
when the object OF the evidence Is
20 show q separate, subsequent valid agree
ment 10 resc1nd, modify. extend or vaive
the contract or q provision Of II. And oral
testimony q distinct and valid parOl con
tract made ~ the same time and not 70
duced 10 writing il admissible. II being
shown that the one party hindered The
completion Of the work c0ntrncfed f0r. that
n wes unfinished afforded no ample defense
to me ofhers right 70 recover. Affirmed.
Ouiunn .coumissioner.
Brfton 4 Naysyr ". Thrash. from Hood
county. The remedy In plea q rec0nven-
fion Il derived from the civil Law. and the
statute ofthis State Do not give bui merely
rerulntes The remedy 70 entitie . party
10 rec0uvrne bis densrd and n0t Re ii1ri-
dafe1. bui e. sufficient SIT arises ouf II or
4 incidefIf 20 o. csrnected With The cause
81 acton sue1 ppyn- The general rule
nr eride1ce IN cirl cases il
ffrt rhe rsnernl chnrscfer 81 par1ies Is
NJ admissible unieH the nnture III tLr
rl-rfr Of eoes directly - affsei b. A1-med.
NrIfs r1-nrrirsiouer.
!" 49, 49, ~ baird. frorn Hason co--t~
An rrrnrI b1nd. ctherwise corerr. -
uffeh 4 rrIrerrs that The iulCmerf -
o. n. f. rtat ren1e-ed in TIE triaI r1ur1 I
+ ma fatnIlT dcfsr-lTt ber1use he 1rnourt
~ fhr fnIrrnent 4 r1fssi1te1 au1 The err
rr.-.sr-r q .rirsl Angrer th1t alleges fartr
I','rfI 'r-Ir riftir TIE ruDEIeIrs q rlnIrtil
- .-.t rr arr hin rr1 No. 81 rIr a..
-. r-.rr~Ir rIrerrnIed- Hn~inF nIIere1 .
II'r..' r--If - flt defsnd1it indeed n,