The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-02-03

buDJoct, curing INC lML TWO yOhrs, HhNo
deemed IL. my duty TO present these views 70
the legislature for their consideration, and
for such action, II any therein, as may In their
Judgment be deemed for the public good.
Il invoices question that is before us now,
that is growing in Importance, and must be
met sooner or later. Ga the subject Of a
university, / respectfully refer you TO the
memorial of committee, appointed by the
state association OF teachers, addressed 10 me
and ask for it respectful consideration, as
coming from those, who, from their occupa-
ton, have given attention and thought to,
the subject. 1t will be submitted to you.
Appeals
Prepared for the Herald by Edward j. Ham,
ner, of Galvsston.l
I. & G. N. railway company vs.. Agapeto
Ssmora; appeal from Travis county. This
suit was bronoht by appelle in Justices
court for damages resulting from killing a
horse. Judgment was rendered sgainst APP
pellsnt, O. the case was removed by writ Of
eertiorari tho county court, where the trial
resulted in verdict for appellee for $l0s.
The court rendered judgment therefor and
also for the peecent. damages. Held, That
"the ten per cent. damages awarded by the
court is not autbrized by law" Reversed and
remanded. Hurt, Judge.
William Connoley VS.. B. o. Gambriel;
appeal from McLennan company. In taking
appeal from the Justices court the appellee
herein failed to file his appeal bond in ten
days. Appellant moved to dismiss in county
court on account of the court having no
Jurisdiction. Motion oyerruled. The only
question presented is, did the county court
err in so helding? Held, That the statute
required the appeal bond to be fled within
ten days after the rendition of judgment as q
means of perfscting the appeal, and this not
bepg done the county court had no juris-
diction of the case. Reversed and remanded.
White, p. J.
p. Il Wilson VI. Samuel Green; appeal
rom Clay county. While there are many
points presented Ia this case, the only one
Don which the case wss reversed and which
uas not heretofore repeatedly decided is,
Did the court err in permitting plaintift's
wife to testify on behalf of the husband over
defendants objection? Upon this point the
court held, The objection we think WAS well
taken; the testimony of Mrs. Green went 10
establish the delivery ofthe cattle and other
facts TO which there WAS no other testimony.
For his cause on authority ofGte vs.. Scott,
4S Texsa, 6l0; thejudgment must be recov-
cred Reversed and remarded Hurt,
Judge.
j. G. Heston 81 Bro vs.. Morgan's Lou
isiAna 81 Texas Railroad and Steamship com
pany; appeal from Victoria county. Where
the avocstion of common carrier is piled
within the limits of our state, the statute ex-
pressly prohibits their right TO restrict or limit
their ability, as it existed a. common law by
any special agree neDt whatsoever. (Rev. State.
art. 27S) The attempted limitation of labil-
ity in this case is stipulation attached to
the bill of lading as follows: Gall liability for
damages by rust or brealsge, is assumed by
shippers" The damage complained of by
plaintiffs, was by breaNage. Reversed and
remsnaed. White, p. j.
7. H. Cross 81 Co., vs.. Hufaker
81 Harris; error from Lamar county. The
petition upon lis face showed that suit was
brought before the maturity of the debt
which defendant assumed to pay, and there
fore before this cause of action accrued in
suit upon an unliquidated demand. The
dhnla8eb Iuusb 10 SStsScd W tuo " " ahN
not BY q clerk. Pas Dig. Art. 1508.)
Reversed and remandsd. White, p
Texas g. Pacific railroad company vs..
Schneider s. Davis, appeal from Dallas
county. The main question presented in
this case WAS whether there was such a de-
livery as would take away the liability or
appellants AS common carrier aal i.apcse
upon them the limited liability OF Ws'clJusc-
men. The lost goods sued on az " .fh .
Is alleged were not delivered, reached Fort
WORTH 10 the morning and we're Immediately
checked into the appellants foresight and
The bill for the freight presented 70 con,
signees and by them paid. The depot, to-
gethor with the goods, was destroyed by fire
about 8o'clock that night. II aisy appears,
from the record that there was an arrange
nsnt bs.Woe4l .Ao floisAs asons of az poll4A.
and consignees by which all consignment.
to the latter we're checked into appellants
demo. on the day of arrival and the freight
bills sent over and collected from consignecs,
and on the following dag the goods were
loaded on car by. tho appellant snd
switched west about 800 feet TO consignee's
warehouse and there delivered. According
to tho rule Of appellants, all freight bills bad
10 be paid before the goods would be deliv-
cred. sour statute regulating raiiroEd com
panies, y Provides, That they shall be
liable, rs common carriers, from
the commencement of the trip
OF voyage until the goods arc do
livered TO the consignee at the point q des-
tinauOn." Pas. Dig Art 455 Held, That
"while our law prohibits common carriers
from limiting their liability as sach by
special contract, etc, ve know Of no pro-
hibition against this extending or enlsrging,"
ar1 t,.f fha-ar rvaa No auoh foiirorv "a