The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-11-02
SYNOPSIS OF OPINIONS.
Grylcr Term iss.-Reported for the Statesman
Supreme Court.

Tyler Term lss.- Reported for the statesman.l
supreme Court.
Thomas VS.. Thomas appeal from Ma
rion coutny.-On motion 10 affirm on
certificate. Parties appealing causes TO
the supreme court should be careful in
seeing that the endorsement of the clerk
Of the distric: court showing who ap-
piled for the transcript and TO whom the
same was delivered, is signed officially
by the clerk of the district court. I'm
less this is done, the cause cannot be
filed. This ruling is made in accord
ance with the rules of the supreme
court and has been strictly adhered 10
ever since the adoption of said rules.
Quite a number of cases lose their
places on tine docket in consequence of
failure TO comply with this rule. THIS
same rule applies to certificates for at
tlrmance. Reference to rule three,
rules for the supreme court. Certificate
dismissed. G. j.
Wright VS.. Blackwood ct al, appeal
from Travis county.-The evidence pre-
senting such state of case as would au-
thorize appellant TO do such acts in ref
erence to her separate property as we're
necessary to its preservation and her sup
port (she being separated from her hus-
handy. the effect of the power of attorney
given by her will be considered. 0Tex.
1870 Z; IL Tex. l43 10 Tex. 4 /; II Tex.
8i3. The power of attorney authorized
Stands to take general charge of
the real estate, rent or lease the same
collect and receipt for all money arising
from the same, ~ make all necessary
repairs . to place the same in thorough
repair to pay such sums of the rental
value ~ as may be necessary. Held ::
This gives the attorney in fact power to
make such repairs as were necessary, and
II does not appear that he exceeded his
authority; the clause ito pay such sums, +"
etc, was not intended TO operate as re-
strietion on his power to contract and
pay for, in proper manner, all improve
menis, rs given in other parts Of The in
strument Afiirmed.-Stayton, j.
ellison VS.. Hale appeal from Lamar
county.-Gilson held claim of $1544.O 7
against the estate of which Hale was adj
ministrator; on presenting it 1896 was
allowed. afterward approved and paid.
This suit is for the balance. The petit
tion set out the cause of action as identi-
cal with the account presented to and
partially allowed by the administrator.
kJulb 10 Ob uoSOuhb anu
credit is given of 1894. Held, The
money paid by the administrator was not
paid as credit. The petitions uncer-
tainty as to items sued on renders ii liable
60 a general demurrer. The allowance
and payment of the account in part was
under act of August Is, 1870. Held,
The probate court had jurisdiction of the
entire claim, but its manner of presenta-
ton prevented the court from approving
any more than had been allowed by tn e
administrator. He will be held TO a
submission as to the balance of his ac-
count by permitting a judgment to rest
.dn his claim by accepting part pay
.meDt, and there is no reason why it
should not have 'the full force and effect
of judgment" of any court other than
the probate court. He should have sued
on his entire claim in a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction. Affirmed. -Stayton, j.
Court of Appeals.
Bell vs.. Allen ct al; from Palo Pinto
.county.-Suit against Bell Il Schoolcmft
brought by appellees for certain -four sent
them TO be sold ON commission. School
craft on the trial plead non partnership
with Bell and testified that he had paid
Bell for the flour in groceries, dry goods
.and.other RrtiC les Judgment against Bell
IN favor of Schoolcraft and against APP
'pellees. The contest is between Bell and
Schoolcraft, the appellees not complain
ing of the injustice, if any, of the court
below. Held. There is no error appar-
ent in the record. The charge OF the
court Is correct and the judgment is
affirmed. Hurt, ].
Cara VS.. state; from Webb county. -
AT the last term of this court this case
was before us and was then reversed 1t
is now before us again, but now there Is
no statement of facts in the record. The
reason given il that the attorney who
represented appellant in the former suit
and on the former appeal and even on
the trial in the court below was not paid
for his services. He therefore declined
TO have further to do with the
case. Another attorney was en-
ployed, but he, knowing nothing
.ab0sIt the evidence adduced on the
trial and appellant not understanding the
English language, they could not make
APP a statement of facts. Held, This is
u sufficient reason for the failure. No
application Is shown 10 have been made
10 the district attorney, nor was the judge
requested 10 make up the statement, and
in the absence of a statement OF facts we
can only look to the indictment and
charge Of the court finding the one sufh-
cient aud the other correct the judgment
is affirmed. Wilson, j.
Henry VS.. state; appeal from Bowie
county.-The indictment or information
herein following the strict language OF
the statute Is correct. As the ground of
objections 10 The clerk of the county
court testifyiug to the tax levied, and for
the nou.payment Of which appellant is
prosecuted il not stated in the bill
of exceptions, 1t cannot be consider
ed. The evidence though circumstan-
sisl is ample to support the verdict and
Judgment. Venue of the offence can be
amply proven by circumstantial evidence
Ia this case the evidence was ample.
Afiirmed. Wilson, J.
Paynter ct al VS.. Straus Il Co.; appeal
from FanniB county. -Appellees sued
Paynter and wife aud one Rhine. They
had sold goods TO Paynter's wife, who
was In the miliner business, and when
about TO fail had turned over to Rhine,
who she owed about 1900, a stock of
goods worth $A00. Rhine had taken the
goods aud stored them away. afterwards
placing part of them in his store among
his goods and sold some of them. Judg-
ment recovered against all parties for half
the value Of the goods so transferred.
The jury having found from the evidence
that this was used In the tranfsr made
60 defraud other creditors, and there be-
ing evidence to sustain such finding, the
court will not set the verdict and judg'
ment aside. Affirmed Wilson, j.
Carter vs.. Chambliss appeal from Ma
vsrro couuty.-The court below quashed
the affidavit for distress warrant and the
plaintiff thereupon refusing to prosecute
his suit further. defendant, with permits
sion Of the court, withdrew his counter
claim and plea in reconvention
and took judgment against the plaintiff
for the goods levied on, or their value,
and all costs. Held, The affidavit failing to
state that appellants furnished appellee
any supplies, or that such supplies were
necessary for the purpose of enabling the
appellee TO make a crop on the land, II
was properly quashed and seeing no
error in the Judgment of the court below,
il Is affirmed.-Hurt, j.
Phillips & Warrick VS.. Adkins appeal
from Lee county. = This suit being
Brought on the pledge of the fulillment
OF the written contract, the court properly
held jurisdiction. The county in which
the contract is to be finished is the county
having Jurisdiction. Where judgment is
recovered in the justice court. and upon
appeal to the county court Judgment
for q less amount Is recovered by the
same party, unless good reason is shown
TO the contrary, the cost OF the county