The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-14

% IN case OF any disputed question OF fact
IL Is upon defendant 70 show that the yer.
dict was not returned into opea court, il il
3e s quesuonedi 70 CT. App, SSSl. Affirmed.
White, p. j,
Brooks VS.. the State; from Navarro
county. The defendant having offered to
steal horses with one H., the latter in
formed his employer and they set watch
and apprehended him in the act, arresting
hun at his home shortly after. Held.
the main states witness did not offer any
inducement to appellant to COMM, the
oiiense. The case presented is that of a
supposed aceomphce giving information,
when being followed up, the offender was
detected IN the act The question of good
hath was fairly submitted to the jury, their
verdict Will not be disturbed. Affirmed.
White, p. j.
Carter ct al VS.. Park ct al; from Cooke
county. A writ OF attachment being
placed IN Carter hands, he, being deputy
sheriff, levied upon the wagon and team of
appellee, which the latter claims rs exempt
property and brings this suit for damages.
The party suing ont attachment seeks to
shield himself by alleging that the suit
should be against Carter as deputy sheriff,
and his sureties upon his official bond
The evidence showed that appellee had
been found on the road and he and his fam.
lily elected from the wagon and left in the
wsgon-yard. Judgment was given below
for $4s7. The evidence amply supports this
verdict. No error is apparent Of record
and the judgment must stand. Affirmed.
White, p. j.
Mchie vs.. Simpkins OF al; from Navarro
county. hppelees AS Yustees sued appel.
liant for the occupancy Of certain farm
and for damages for cutting timber from
the land. MCKEE plead that, believing the
land was his testator's, he went upon iS,
and put thereon valuable improvements TO
u greater extent than the value of the
rents, etc. and plead in reconvention for
certain sugar cane left thereon, etc Judg.
ment was rendered in favor OF appellee.,
the plea OF reconvention being stricken out.
Held, the evidence is sufficient to support
the verdict, no error appears of record, and
none have been pointsd out. Affirm ed
| Wilson, j.
Goodrich VS.. King: from Falls county
Suit was brought by King against Good.
rich as maker and Jones as endorser OF a
certain note given by G. to J. for building
a house. &. plead failure OF con.
sideration that the house was
not properly built and that
he was damaged, etc. Jones plead limita.
ton and want of diligence to fix liability
on him. King answered that before pur.
chasing the note he inquired of it from
| Goodrich, and the latter said it was correct
and would be paid. Held. |. These facts
estop Goodrich from pleading failure Of
consideration as against King. >. Jones
plea Of statute of limitation was good one
and was properly sustained. Affirmed
Hurt, ].
Curry vs. Terrell from Washington
county. Whom suit originates in the jus.
tice court and either party fails to enter
any desired plea, upon appeal to the county
court he will not be allowed to plead any
new matter not so pleaded or sot up in the
justice court. The same rules govern ap
peals TO the county court Is apply to cases
carried up by certiorari. Reversed and re
manded. Wilson j.
Reed & Co, vs.. Lockett ct al; from John
son county. This suit was brought by ap
pellecs against the appellants for new
trial and injunction, A judgment by de
fault was taken against Lockett, and exc
cution was levied upon the Homestead o
himself and wife. BY mistake the couse
employed by Lockett had failed to hle al
answer. Judgment below was given, setting
aside the Judgment by default and perpet
uating the injunction. Held, appellants d.
not show any ground to us for reversal tn,
above facts warranted the Judgment rem
dered, and it is affirmed. Wilson, j.
DAVIS Il Oats vs.. Leatherwood, ct al; from
Johnson county. This cause comes up be
fore the court on motion to dimiss the ap
peal for the want of jurisdiction. The caus
was tried in the court brloy OF
the probate side under article 2l7
of the Revised Statutes: the amour
In controversy being $l3l.02. Held, tn
court can do nothing but sustain the az
peal. This being purely probate proceed
ing, the proper action would have been Al
appeal to the district court. This courI
therefore, cannot consider it, and the NJ
peal must be dismissed. Wilson, j.
Gunter & Munnson vs. Austin College
from Grayson county. 1t is necessary tina
to rstify an authorized act, and making |
binding on the party so ratifying it mus
be made with full knowledge Of I'll msteria
facts. If such are unknown there can b.
no ratification. 1t was agreed between tn
parties that the recovery should be tn
value of tho land subscribed as put upon /
by tho trustees of the college in connection
with the party subscribing it. Held
having neglected to comply with this par
Of the contract, the trustees cannot CLAIM
any advantage or equity by reason of il
having received in good faith the valuation
unlawtully set upon the land by an I'm
authorized party. Reversed and remanded
Wilson, j.