The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-14
THE APPELLATE COURTS.
synopsis Of Opinions Of tho Court of Appes

synopsis of Opinions oftho Court of Appeals
Parton VS.. Keeling; from Falls county
Appellee sued appellant on q breach oicon
tract, alleging that she was the mother-in'
law of appellant. On the death OF his wife,
who left an infant child Of five days, she
took the infant and reared II, furnishing al
necessarles for its comfort, on the under
standing that she was TO keep the child,
When about three yeavs Of age Parton took
his child from her by writ OF habeas corpus.
Appellee laid her damages at value OF her
care for the child and the value of prepare
ton on her part. Judgment for SOD.
Hold, the correct measure of damages In
this case was as sued for; /. G., the breach
ofcontract and the value OF appellee's ser
vice while caring for the child. She can
also recover for the value of preparation
made by herto carry out her contract; @
Texas, 30j). Affirmed, White, p. J.
Coneer VS.. the State; from Wood county.
The conviction in this case was for playing
at certain game with cards, and line Of
$l0assesscd in the Justices court. An dp-
peal was taken TO the county court and
therein the same fine was assessed. A mo-
ton is now made TO dismiss for the want of
iunfdictiou of this case. Held, the judg-
ment rendered in the county court being
for less sum than $780, under authority
of the case of Cherry vs. the State, Ct
Amp, the appeal is dismissed. White, p. ].
Young vs.. the State from UPshur county.
One of the Jurors In the court below, on en-
tsring the fury room, stated to the other
Jurors that he knew OF otter unlawful acts
OF thc defendant, and that he was n mean
man. This was the ground upon which
the new trial was sought and refused, and
for which reversal is sought Held, there
xis no proOt that the declaration made in
iny wise influenced tile remaining Jurors
in finding their verdict, though the con
Eary Is shown by the tact that the least
punishment possible was assessed; this
therefore, does not come within thcmscon-
duct ola juror as stated in the statute;
(Austin VS., State, Il Texas, Sjj.l Affirmed.
White, q. !,
Eriedlauder vs. Bull from Falls county.
AppelIutfled claim bond and claimed q
certain lot OF seed cotton, levied on by vir.
the o, Il distress warrant for rent Of the land
on which the cotton was rSised Appellant
claims the said cotton by virtue ola written
instrument purpotting to be bin of sale.
Judgment against appellant for $l2D the
value OF The cotton. Remitlitur of $40 en-
tered, making Judgment the same amount
Of rent due, Held, The instrument under
which appellant claims the cotton being a
mortgage and not bill Of sale, the dis.
trcss warrant was paramount thereto and
the judgment therefore was erroneous. AZ.
iirned. Wilson !,
Millspaugh vs., Mayiield; from Taylor
county, Suit on contract for failure to
carry certain goods from Taylor county to
Tom Green county, brought by appellant
against appellee, residing In Brown county.
On first trial appellee plead to the iurisdic.
ton OF the court plea Overruled by the
then presiding judge new trial granted,
and trial had before another Judge, who
sustained the plea, dismissng the cause.
An attachment hayng been levied pre-
vious TO the filing of the iurisdictional
plea appellant contends that the plea wgs
filed too late Held, the Judgment over.
ruling the plea to the jurisdiction OF the
court beuE only an interloCutory one, the
last Judge did not err in sustaining the plea
TO the jurisdictions as the contract was TO
be completed in Tom Green county and the
defendant resided in Brown county, the
suit should have been brought in one of
those counties, A motion to quash an nj.
taohmont Is not plea, and the plea to the
jurisdiction was not therefore filed too late,
Affirmed. Wilson, J.
WEIGH Vi, the State from Wood county.
The rcoogni1ance complained of aud for
tho defect in which the states attorney
moves a dismissal, states that the defendant
stands charged with, and convicted of, "ma.
liciou6 mischief " Assistant atlorncy.gen.
eral says for ground of dismissal that INA.
hoioug mischief "a no oflenso known TO
our laws. Held, 'malicious mischief" 90
noniinc, is not an otlensc known to the laws
OF our state, and not being such. the rccog-
nigancc falls TO state that the defendant
stands charged with any oiense conse-
p.j