The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-02-12
Synopsis OF Opinions of the CeHFt
OF Appeals.
[Prsparsd for tho Herald by Edward J. Ham
ner, OF GalvesOn.l

from Bas.rop county. The rule in rsg.td sc
charges of the court in felony cases ID, tho
court must apply the low by a proper ehirT'
to every conclusion deducible from the owl
dence, whether asked or not II there is any
evidence tending, though slightly TO eStAb-
llsh q defense, the defendant is entitled TO a
charge directly upon lhatpoint no matter
what view she court may entertain
Of the weight and value Of the
the te,tsmony, and charge com
posed of statusry definitions generally mp
piled will not suffice. 7 Ct, app, 464; Re-
vened and remauded, White, ?. J.
II. A. Graves VS.. A. j. Fry appeal from
Guadalupe comfy. Fry sued out on iniunc-
ton from tho county court Of GuadShpo
county, to restrain appelaSt as collector Of
taxes from selling lots in Saguiu for SsS 90,
la1es assessed upon them. Held, Tbs. the
county court ha1 no iuriliioli'', the
amount of taxes being less Than 5000 and
that court having no geEeral equity iursdic'
ton to remove clouds upon lsnd tlloi
Grant Va. Qliuae'l Law J.. 2 Vol. ST.
Reversed and dismissed. Hurt j
Mitchell, Vonce 81 Co. vs. the DAllF city
gaslight company; appeal from Dallas
county. This csso was tried by toe cDurS
below without tho Intervention Of q jury.
Court found for defendant on tho factt.
Hold. The finding of tie courts upon the
fsctl i, ~ conclusive end viii be regarded in
the same wsy us The verdict OF a jury, and
an appellate court will not SGT aside the
finding Of Jury unless it clearly Hppaar' 70
be wrong. % Tex, 767; 10 Tex. ca; rs Tex
40 The finding q sjury or court trying
The facts will not be SOC side when the evil
dence is conflicting. 4 Tex %; 81 Tex. $50.
The evidence in the case WAS conflicting and
therefore the judgment is affirmed. iltrt, j.
Richardson y Go. va THATCHER q Go;
appeal from Washington county. Whstovsr
msy be the private understanding Of part
ncrl among themselves and Whatever liOhl
they may put upon tho T d alng, II mus ba
shown that inc creditor kne OF such, o5lsr-
wise they are al Liable for the purchases Of
any commodity in thsir line Of business hy
any ore Of the partners ihougN done with
out tho partnerships knowlod @ or consent
Where the subject matter ofthe contract is
consistent with tho partnership busiuo" or
incident ia any msnner 10 il, the act Of ona
partner is binding upon al. Reversed sud
Remanded. White, ?, j,
II. 81 r. @ railway compsny w. j. A.
Lovett; appeal from Gfsyson county. Ap-
pellants train snd appelee's wagon cDllided
Mt q point on the railroad wher, the public
road crosses the sans. There We, no sign
"a required by law and appellee also al.
legos the failure ofappellNnt to ring the bell
50 The law requires ApP"llsnt sllegs' con-
tributory nesligcncs in failing to eZercit'
ordinary cars on tbs part Of agpslls, 10 moi
ascerlsining PhRhar or not tb'
plaintiffs train va1 approaching
This court in effect charge ih'
iury that appellant would be liable unlei
the spp>llse knsN Of the near approach O
the train at the simo be drove upon t5str.-k
Held, The court should have sdle1- tha
If appellee could have known Of lhs nes
approach Of ths train by the use OF ordinlr,
care the appellant would not BE- lisbs. TIL,
rule appears TO bo vel settled thu. n0tWitn
staining tho failure of the ralrotd sompan
to comply with tho statute in putting up th
,grs and ringing the bell or blowing th
r6is,le. that NEVERTHELESS II tn, >ppelleN VA
wanting in ordinary caro- in not sicNrtainin
the fsat that the rain WAS 'h.n approachin
and that the want Of srdinA Y csre on b
part in this particular contributed 20 Il
collision and consequent iRiuri.l re'nltin
therefrom, he would DO guilty Of contrib
tory negligence sud could not recover for d
injury. 81 Tex. 20l Reversed and remsnde
Hurt, j
John e. Esudmayer vs. Jane, Youn
appeal from Lee county. In the record
this cess, toero is IN Instrument cJ',iDir
wha' purports to bn q s,stCmont T fac
which was not certified TO nor signed |
the Judge until after the adiournmr
of tho term Of court et whith y
Judgment was rendered. The JUDGE apron,
ss a reason that it was made out and ,gH'
by the attorneys in due time and cfrreyiC
by him, but through insdyertance he omiu
TO sign Il. Held, However the error ms
have been committed, it is fatal. Il team
bs regarded asa statement Of facts, and $, u
question presented Is mainly upon She RI
iugI of the court on tho evidence, tho judo
ment is affirmed. Affirmed. white 2,
Frederick Meir Va. the state OF Tex,
Nppo"' A".' Hu'"H a
rsl%s point Q. 70 tho suIlGienoy ot y
Information wnicn charges ~ rolioWs' 10"
Dld then and there mske an a
sault ana battery upon one ABBOTT Solom'
oy 'hen ana tnere Mr,xlng MIN ,r
win siung saol ana innleWng'ef'"nN''od'
injuries upon NM mo ~
pellant seeks she,Ier under inc expression
tho coda whleh declares 'hM ono cannot
prosecn'ed on an Indictment unle"lS coa's
NE assault and bstery IN express rm
, Held TnM oy ialr ana proper loletp I,
tatiOn OF the law, u Will be found from u