The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-28

sent must be proved like any other element
oi the oitense. II cannot be presumed OF
supposed. II may be proved BY circums stan.
llsi evidence " Tex. 2O9; As Tex. &c; / OF.
app. lu2; CT. app. Az Act. app. 246; S ct.
son. l. tTN
Shelton VS.. State; from Milan county.
The evidence whether positive or circum-
stantial. should lead the mind to the con-
clustYn ofguilt TO q moral certainty. The
conclusion should be reached easily, nat
uraiiy and conclusively and with that de-
gree OF certainty which places the mind at
rest on the question. The evidence not
eeing of that conclusive nature which we
hold sufficient to support a conviction, the
Judgment IS reversed and the cause re.
manded. Hurt, j. -t|
synopsis of Opinions OF the Supreme Court
Campbell { Clough VS.. George +. Afford
ct al; from Galveston county. Appellants
furnished one B. with barging ties to
the amount of $ls7 60 le, Ia .erstsnd-
ing that certain co,.u.. I'D hides which
were pointed out, being ready for ship.
ment, would be delivered to appellant.
The cotton and hides were sent by vaeon
10 be shipped to appellants, The vi OF
1 ..s'"S NpheuihhiS Was oiipuldAluli NhN hN-
llvered by the owner to appellants without
endorsement. B. applied to appellees to
advance money to hun and also to assume
a certain debt stating that he had the cot
ton, wool, and hides in the warehouse at
liberty. They ascertaiued that the prop.
erty was there and made the advance
ment. The property was shipped under
u bill of lading in which the
appellees were consignors, They received
The property on arrival at G.. The question
presented is; Do the facts show u valid
| pledge by b. to appellants of the property
to secure the advances made by themi
Held, the question of pledge depends upon
the intention of the parties. There was an
agreement to pledge while the property was
at Woodville. Upon the faith of that agree
ment appellants shipped to b. the bsggine
and ties. The subsequent delivery of the
bill of lading to appellants while the prop
erty was in transit shows BIS intention tC
consummate the agreement. Property il
tra1situ may be pledged by the delivery o
bills NJ lading therefor, aud such delivery
is a constructive delivery of the property BY
which Il lien in the way of pledge wa,
created. Such lien is superior
to attachment lien on the property
The delivery of warehouse receipt with
out endorsement constitutes a suiiiclen
delivery. of the property to sustain tn,
pledge against the attaching creditor. Use,
"a Texas, 595.) There being valid ant
binding agreement to ship the property il
question TO appellants to secure the debt
made upon the faith that such shipmen
would be made, and the bill of lading evi
dencing the fact of the delivery Of tn,
property in contamination Of the agree
ment the right of b. to the possession o
tho mr. M tie cnntrn1 had cd N.
the carrier held the same Tor appellants
and the court erred in charging otherwise
Reversed and remanded. Stayton, ].
&. II & s. A. railway company vs., Free
man; from Fort Bend county. The ques
ton presented in this case Is, can CLAIM
for damages against railroad for killin
stock be transferred? After a. careful ex
animation of authorities we decide tina
everything which can be called debt ca
be assigned and the assignee may recove
either in his own name or that Of his u,
signor As to facts similar to this case &c
% Barbour, no. Affirmed. Delany, J.
Kimbral VS.. Cushing; from Wa.hingto
county. Suit for piano sold to n. by {
The sIipulations of the sale are that N, pay
SIS on receipt of piano, $50 additional tc
each quarter n. may keep the piano, an
$3.50 in seven equal payments with mteres
iiViu, tuc 'Si MS VI tuC ukIStiucht aic oo ~
consistent that it cannot be held to be
renting and sale. ltis q matter Of don't
whether 1t should not be held void f
inconsistency and uncertainty. If a vail
instrument ut all, IL must be held to be
sale, aud the pretended renting was
secure the remainder OF the purchas
money due. n. sold the piano, and it
sought in third hands. Held, the remaiI
der of the purchase money was sought
be secured, not by recorded lien, und
our statute of registration, but through Il
CONTRACT of renting. Even il binding upo
the original parties, it is not so as to THU
| parties 10 Bush. (Va.), 4s3 So ILL.,, al !;
: Grants cases PENN, 24S; II Mo-, 12l,
contrary, but we think the rule here ador
, ed SOUND in principle and public polio
, Reversed and rendered. Bonner, ].