The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-02-02

suit wss brought by appslle in Justices
court for damages resulting from killing 8
horse. judgment was rendered FgAinst ap-
pellant, and the case was removed by writ of
certiorari to thecouuty court. where the trial
resulted in verdict for appellee for Sl0a.
The court rendered judgment therefor snd
also 'or the per cent damages. Held, That
'the ten per cent. damages awarded by the
court is not suthrized by law" Reversed and
remanded. Hurt, Judge.
Wilam Connolly VS.. B. 0. Gamsriel;
appeal from McLennSn company. In taking
appeal from the Justices court, the appelleo
herein failed TO file his appeal bond Ia ten
days Appellant moved 10 dismils in county
court on account of tha court having NO
jurisdiction Motion oyertued The only
question presented is, did the county court
err in so boldingl Held, That The statute
required the appeal bond to be hlsd within
ten days after the rendition Of Judgment al a
means Of perfeetiog TIE appeal, and this not
being dona the county court bad no juris-
diction ofthe csse. Reversed and reminded.
White ?. J.
P. &, Wilson va. Samuel Green; appeal
from Clay county. While there are many
points presented in this case, toe Only emo
upon which the case was reversed aud which
has not heretofore repeatedly decided is,
DID The court err in permitting plaintiffs
wife TO testify on behalf Of the husband over
defendants okiectionf Upon this point the
court held, The objection wo think was well
taken; the testimony Of Mrs. Green went to
establish the delivery ofthe cattle and other
isott to which the,o no other testimony.
For this cause on authority ofG.e VS.. Scott,
40 Texas, 6lOi theiudgment must be recov-
ersd. Reversed and remanded. Hurt,
Judge.
j. O. Heaton 81 Bro. Va. Morgan's Lou.
isitnN " Texas Railroad and Steamship com.
PGuyi appeal from Victoria county. Where
the avooation OF common carrier is pli0d
within the limits Of our state the statute ex-
presily prohibits their right torestrict or limit
their ability, as il existed o. common law by
any speclal agree nent whatsoever. (Roy Stats.
art. 27S) The attempted limitation of liebil.
lly IN this asse is u stipulation attached to
The bill OF ladjng 20 follows; GAN liability for
damages BY rust or broakogo, is assumed by
shippers" The damage complained of by
pls0tilli, was by braA, egs Reversed and
rsmandal White p. j.
T. II. Cross IL Co., vs.. Huffakar
u Harris; error from Lamar county. qha
petition upon Ifs face showsd that suit Yves
brought before the maturity Of the debt
vhice defendant assumed TO pay, and shore
isr3 before this oasse OF action accrued in O.
suit upon ga pnliquiiatad demsnd. The
damages must be assae1ad by tie july, aud
i p ., Wy cle.N, ia; ~ Dig' Art I0Oo)
~ ',~ guy .g.''.,'O.u Wu'I7' I'd
eots''I. 4" ' NV IaHIu'l company Vs.
,'Uu.,'N ny - pny,'' aPp9a' rom pSllas
t tS.I Ivy. ,,. o nsl question presented IN
i Il'' v''ao .'9 "i,'.or mere ".' euoo do
i'N,,I u.s. "ou.l uS. away lh2 Inability oi
PF0' i., 80 q. Go'll',l 2sfIlef ana impose
M i-. ..i''',u mummy OF "N.ero use
al 'g NV, 'o2' .ou'a s1el ON AhN "lly9 u.
,lj',,1 ~ H'' uo-''e'eu' ''NlNeq for'
XIX, ~ Wv. l,5Iu,ps aqu were MN. dW'sl}
A.. h,u ' e Tao oVP5I,'il'a lot'''sAs aad
wv WI, ~ Wy lr'.rng presumed 10 con
s's a,t htS " tulln PAD 1ne depot Co.
om, iSi' w. f;.vus' was ugs"oy9l ny IRE
eD,u' - WY - wv .l. Isu. ~ "'S' appears
r,l'. iu nou.iu u, VH"s toJr9 was IN arrange
~ os'"eon 10 i'u'SnI "Syh. Oh uppeliant
g, u oop''Snoe@ " "n,ch ~i consignment
W -, 'uo I"vser woFe cnocNe9 mo appellants
i LyYos ON tno aAy Oh aIrlVal Saa the freight
ol'5' 'un' VNeT a m ColIecyed rom conmgHee',
Sua 9u suo loi'V"lng dSy inc goods wero
luauea On car oy tea appellant and
o"i' ',e "ess @Vou. oVO ieet 10 cohSgnees
"'.1uouSo osu tuore aehyefeI, hCcordiag
70 Sno ny u appellans'' al lre'ght OllS mad
~ P' go ue'oio .uu BOoHs "ou'u Ue ae!lV-
o,uG ; ~ y 9 D reGG ls rHilroSo COM