The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-19

| ing no error in the charge, and falling 10
find any error in the case, and the jury hay-
ing found for Wright, their verdict will not
be disturbed. Affirmed. Wilson, j,
Russell vs.. 0ppenheimer & Co; from
Dallas county, Appellant sent cotton by a
teamster to be delivered to commission
merchants in Dallas, but instead of doing
so, he, the teamster, went into Dallas and
sold the cotton at the usual place where
cotton is sold in Dallas to appellees. APP
pellees refused when demanded to give the
cotton up. No one has ever paid appel
liant tor the cotton. On the trial below the
court admitted evidence TO show that the
local custom in Dallas was TO consider the
person in possession to be the owner. APP
pellant knew of no such custom.
Held, evidence of the usual cuAtom was
inadmissible. The law ofmarkct Mert not
being rule oflaw of this state and local
custom cannot subvert rule of law. The
party selling cannot give more perfect
title than no possesses, and whore one
comes into possession of personal property
and sells it, though he sells IL MS his own
and the purchaser did not know il did not
belong TO him, yet the purchaser derives
no title. Reversed and remanded. White,
p.l.
Hearno vs.. the state; from De Witt
county. One Friar turned his horse out TO
Craze one night aud next morning he was
missing. Following him up he found ap-
pellant confined in jail, and Tor what is not
known. Upon asking where Friar's horse
was' no told, put afterwards when the morse
mao been ionnd he SAID his iather-in-law
nau snapped the horse to nun HIS conles-
SION was admitted IN evidence, Held, the
ueieioahcs confession being admitted
without objection, and it is in CON
neCtiOu with the other circumstance
clearly proving. ms CUNT, ana there
Deihg nothing IN the courts charge
calculated 10 lhlure the deiendants rights
'he Judgement Is aihrmeu: Hurt; j.
hr,ihgton vs. the olateiirom prlihcs coun-
W. Inc Indictment III tuiscase was attacked,
because u was iouhu alone upon tAc con
lessioh VI appeiiant' inere was no evidence
contrauicting the 'act that ms concessions
were not voluntary and therefore legal
ieid,, appellant cannot coliaterally attac K
a. lnuictneht upon the OASIS upon Whleh
the granu jury acted III ilhdihg IL. Iheit'
py actual possession OF properly Nhder
lalse pretehseS' may De shown under an
urinary 'heit' Indictment aihrnleu' Will
SUI J. -
Noight VS.. the State from Tarrant
county. Appellant was convicted in the
court pelow oil theit, upon JOINT or sepa
rate iiulclnelt lwhich IN not snow, by lhc
record)' ana WIN ono Sweizer inc evl-
uence presented as against appellant only
case oil strong suspicion, Swel2er being
uinu separately was louhd not guilty. APP
pellant Deihg convicted, IN ms MOTION Tor a
anew trial offered lhe aindavlt OF SwelZer,
which affidavit eXplainednll the suspicious
culpatory iacts. Inc court refused n new
triai; Held, the case presenting as against
appellant only one OF strong suspicion, and
the ailidavit containing iacts explaining all
suspicious connexions oil appellant, n new
trial should have been granted. Reversed
anu femanded. Hurt, j.
Bradway VS.. Cleppe'; from Milan county.
Judgment having been recovered against
olcpPer and his trustees or claimants, liick
ana Hale, Ciepper appealed aud gave Hale
one scarborough as, sureties on appeal
BOND, which described the Judgment only
AZ against Clepper. n motion to dismiss
the appeal was made in the county court,
Dut IL was oVerruled. Held, the county
court erred in refusing to dismiss the APP
peal, the bond not only falling to describe
the Judgment, but only having one surety,
Hale being u principal to the Judgment re-