The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-10-28

resulted from secretion of the property so
1t could not be found, or some injury where
by its value might be deprecated, and also
that there was not other property subject
to the lien, which, together with the deprc-
ciated property, would satisfy the debt--of
which there is no pretcnse. Affirmed.
Walker, commissioner.
synopsis of the Decisions of the Court OF
Appeals.
Shattuck VS.. Mccartney ct al, from Nc
Lehman county. In an action by an agent
against an officer for damages for the
wrongful levy of an execution, the ques-
tons for the plaintiff to establish are: |,
the ownership of the property at the time
of the alleged conversions 3D. the taking
aud conversion by defendants, and the value.
and 81, to entitle him to exemplary dam
ages, IN addition that the acts OF defendant
were done in an oppressive, spitcful, vim
dlctiVe, or malicious manner In these
questions the burden of proof is on the
plaintiff To meet questions thus made,
the defendant under his plea of justification
must show first II valid Judgment and exc
cutlon TO which the property was subject
second, that the property taken was not the
plalntlifs, and third, that plaintiff at time
OF levy was the agent Of defendant in eXecrl-
ton, or that plaintiff had by his representa-.
lions and silence when called on to speak,
induced the defendant thereby to believe
The property was that of the defendant in
execution, or not his. Charge that il the
plaintiff was present at the levy and failed
to claim the property, he was estoppcd, is
too contracted, and should have further in
strncted that plaintiff in falling to claim the
property had full knowledge of the facts
ana what property was about to be levied
on, and that because he failed, the levy was
made In conflict of evidence in civil cases,
the jury are required to find in favor of the
preponderance of the evidence, themselves
the judges of the weight and crodibility of
the witnes os..Charge that, in such event, tho
defendant Is entitled to the benefit of doubt,
Is error. Reversed and remanded. Wink.
lcr |.
Daugherty & Ammerman VS.. Freiberg &
20. rom Dallas county. Where, Us in
this case, the citation to defendants is found
amply sufficient to describe the cause of
action, the court below acts properly in
overruling the motionto quash the citation.
And this court cannot pass upon the qucs-
ton of offsets claimed when the record fails
to distinctly disclose their natures
Affirmed, White, p. j.
Glover Moore ct al VS.. the state; from
Van Handt county. ln'scirc facias eases the
rules of practice which govern in civil
cases relative to the filing of briefs in the
court below on appeal To this court OBJ.
tain, and where they have not been observed
IN such cases, the appeal must be dismissed.
White, p,j
T. b. Goync VS., the state from Marion
county. Recogniaancc that describes the
al -
describes no oilcnse against the laws of this
state. This prosecution was based on art
lS6 of the Penal Code, which provides for
the punishment of a violation of one of the
sunday laws" The recognizance stating
no no oiiense, the appeal is dismissed.
White, p. ],
Coats VS.. Van Hall, sheriff, etc; from Nc
Lehman county, In a suit lordnmages for fail
ing to comply with bid for renting leased
premises, the court charged the iurv i'm sub
stance that it they believed from the evil
dencc that the defendant made the highest
bid at the first sale, and failed and refused
to carry out his contract, and the place
was re-rentcd, they should find for the
plaintiifin whatever amount they believe
TO he the difference as well as costs of re-
renting, Held, that the charge was not
error White, p.j,
Scarcy and wife vs. Mcalcr; from Bell
county. Work done upon and for the benc.
fit of the separate property oftho wife sub
jocts her rs we'll as the husband to Judgment
for value. thereof. The cause when sinh.
mlttcd to the judge, without the intcryen.
ton of a jury, his action upon the evidence
has the force and effect thereon MS the vor-
diet ofthc jury would have, and will not he
disturbed unless clearly against the evidence
affirmed. White, p.i.
Simon Hart vs., state; from Bowie county.
An appeal bond that binds the obligors, In
an appeal from a criminal conviction TO
abide the decision OF the supreme court, is
not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction
of the appeal and such appeal must be dis.
missed. Dismissed. White, u. /.
Singer Manufacturing company VS.. Flores
and husbands from Bexar county. Aiiida.
Wit for the removal of a cause to the county
court after final Judgment in n Justices
court, must show either that the Justice of
the peace had not jurisdiction, or that in.
Justice was done to the applicant by the
final determination of the suit, and that
such injustice was not the result of his own
inoxcusahlc neglect, and the writ shall not
issue until bond in compliance with article
305, Revised Statutes, has been filed with
AMI approved by the clerk. The affidavit
in this case was properly dismissed BE- the
court below. Affirmed. White, p. ].
syllabus of tho Decisions OF the Commits
sioners of Appeals, Adopted by tho Court
of Appeals.
Jailray Il Co. VS.. Meyer, from Gregg
county. The authority of u party compe-
tent to sue aud be sued TO in crvcne in suits
between third parties depends upon his
having such an interest in the subcct-mat-
ter OF the original suit as may be affected
by decree. he intervention in this case set
up claim to the goods attached in the orig
nal suit upon debt of s6Si, Held, that the
intervenor showed no such interest in the
debt, which was the subject matter of the