The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-02-03
synopsis of Opinions of'the Court of
ApDeals
Prepared for the Herald by Edward j. Ham
ner, of Galveston

ner, of Galveston
j. w. Henry ct al, VS.. Christian Volt;
appeal from Houston county. Suit brought
by appellee against appellants to recover
judgment for property lost by the alleged |
negligence and misconduct of defendants as
owners Of ferry. denry and wife filed their
answer, excepting generally and pleading es-
pecialy 70 the petition coyertue Of Mira
Henry at date of sccrual of alleged cause Of
seton and consequent incapscity 70 assume
the liability Of fe1ymal, and that che had no
control over the ferry or its management,
and was not responsible for the acts Of the
ferTyman. judgment agalnst sppeles. The
question presented is, I'D The court err in
ogerruling defendants exceptions To-
plaintiffs pleadings, seeking to
charge the separate estate Of
Mrs. Henry and her mincr children, AS shown
by the judgment. On this the court says:
"lhe authorities seem to hold that when the
actual owner of terry leases it to another,
and The lessee has entire control and man
agement, If injury and losses are incurred
from negligence in the management or use
of the ferry, that the owner is not responsible
for injuries by negligence during The run
ming of the lease. y Adding that by
statute regulating marital rights, the hus,
band has the sole management of the sepa-
rate property of the wife during the exist
enee of tins marriage, Or. s., art $3.50 and
that the wife cannot join her husband in
making contracts 80 as to bind her separate
property. wallace VS.. Frieoerg). We
conclude that the wife, though the owner of
the ferry in question, had 10 such authority
aud control over the ferry at the TINS Of the
injury rs would make her liable to the plain
tilt for damages incurred by the negligence
of her husband or his servants. The mother
not being liable, her minor children we're, Of
course, not table, Reversed and remanded
Winkler, j.
Isa Smith VS.. E. @. Chile; appeal from
Grayson county, In his case while there
are other questions of minor importance
considered and discussed, the main question
and one worthy OF outei5, 'Is it legal, when
other writings sdnnttod TO Dc genuine, and
are already IN the case, TO prove, by com
pairing the one IN dispute that they were or
were not written by tho same person, the
expert haying no personal knowledge Of the
handwriting Of tho person wnOse signature
or writing is in issue? ThU facle Of tbs cas- o
were simply these: Defendant below plead
release Oh a note. Plaintiff denied such.
Defendant offered TO prove the signature by
experts Dy comparing signatures admitted
to 30 genuine with tho one in question,
which was referred by the court. heid,
That the court below erred 10 rejecting the
proposed testimony. Also, That the court
below erred IN rejecting the proposed tosti-
mony. Greeo, ey. soc. 57S Reversed and
remsnded. Hurt, Jutge.
A. Il Mellow, ys. the State Of Tc1as;
appeal from Fayete county. The cas9
presents question GA motion for coMin"Snco
which hgs never before been preaeatod to
this court for consideration. Wdcn the case
was called below, Decent |, 1880, con-
tinusnce was asked by defsDdent on account
of the absence of two witnessed, Mrs Mellow
and William Gates; The 10 mer, who WIS AZ
home in FGyettG county, attending sck
child; the latter, who was absent but Who
at u later stsg5 THE trial, appeared IN court
but WAS too drunk to testify irLelllgenLlg. The
motion was Overruled; defendants reserved
their bill ofexceptions. Tho reasons assigned
by the judge for overriding the motions were
that defendant having served Mrs. Mellow
with subpoena, could have bad her produced
in court by a writ of attachment; snd that
Gates was sufficiently sober TO testify. The
attestation Of the correctness of the defend
ants bill of exceptions by outsiders (the cOur
having refused to signit as presented, STATED