The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-10
Snopsis of Opinions of the Court OF
Appeals, Tyler Term, 1882.

Appthis, iyitr iSTnl, 1909.
Texas e Pacific railway VS.. Neighbors;
tOm Bowie county. Suit for the value Of a
COW killed by appellants train. Judgment
OESNin the justice court, where plea in
ieconyention was filed, setting up damages
Nhetrain because OF the viciousness the
COW, and that it attacked the train, ETC.,
damages alleged to be $3.50. Upon appeal
Nhe county court motion was made to
dismiss The appeal for want of jurisdic-
uon aldto strike out the plea inrecon-
'ehIl0n as frivolous. Held, there being no
pea lhat the appellants road was fenced,
Mepea IN reconvention was frivolous, and
maze TO give the county court jurisdiction.
Hurt, l.
Webb ct al. VS.. the State; from Delta
county Motion to dismiss for want of suf.
Iuehey In the recogni2ance. 1t only
u1igeS that appellant was charged with
Ileonylcted OF keeping his saloon open
GetStlon day. The information charges
y ". addition thereto thathegaye away liquor,
nela' as defendant, as recited in the judg'
EEsl. was only convicted of keeping open
,-sS S4loo4 on election day, the recogni2ance
s'.,%Rcehtly describes the Judgment and is
|nnIVeht' Motion oyerruled. Wilson, /.
ma na.I vs. the State; from Kaufman county
-.e leCognizance charges that defendant
W. guilty OF wiltully guilty Of obstructing
puoilc road; whereas, defendant was
AIRED with Wilfully obstructing and in
uuEa public road. Motion to dismiss fol
S,,ant recognizance. Held, the re.
w W. must recte The precise charge
nv VI which defendant was convicted
s .'uer oostructing o. iniuring being an OF.
S N4Se the recognl2ance is sufficient. Motion
"SetEuled. Wilson, i.
vsoorh " 20. VS.. Sanders from kaufman
SS.nly' Appellee and appellants, who
S'Jea corporation in New York, service
@. S upon local agent. Motion to quasi
S ~.uCe' plea to jurisdiction and merits, all
soS.auIeu, no action on motion TO quash
S.SaIement of facts in the record. Held
P an upon local agent is actual service
~'ersei Statutes, Article 1921
"a. me return of the citation
%. insufficient, having failed tC
r y's.5 action or motion to 0uash, il will bt
ow 1asGed waived. We cannot consider
jsr oSu3hs relative to the admission of evi
iIts.e IN the absence OF a statement OF facts
AIIrmed, Wilson, /,
o n.Aey VS.. Campbell; from Hopkin,
v,ny' Appellant moves to retax costs o.
sSn usSs lees summoned, but not upon tn,
lell"n,' 70 testify. In the justice court up
Which, plead matters in reconventior
bpt Sppellee summoned witnesses to re
conn,r wv pleading such matters In tn,
rnon vourt these witnesses were not put
tS,t,t,ne stand. Held, 1t not being showr
d, iba witnesses were summoned in FRAUD
10 law purpose OF increasing costs, there !.
tbonnn uepriVing appellee of his costs, al
As s,s the witnesses were not put upor
Cbsalu TO testify. Affirmed. White, y, /
cnnc, VS.. the State; from Rain,
dh"S.s we cannot consider statement
unsssS nled after the adjournment Of court
Ia, s some order appears in the recort
sa,sss,me the party the right to file suct
ian alter term time. The iniorma
srnoa unoonoxious. The questions rs
beSona.l or determination are such Us cannot
snd Muered without q statement of facts
uere being none In the record tn,
Gment Is affirmed. White, y. /.
AorL,son VS.. Fisher Bros. a Co.; from
fanSi county. There being no plea o
Al tSs mistake or accident preventing such
dams.ume an accepted draN was given
ihe N.Y. vs Tor failure TO sell certain cotton n,
onthpes time, such, II any, accruing be
AID 's arait was given, are not reasona bic
p,ops,r 'ea IN recoAvention for such wa,
Aeisg oyerruled. There is no error, ant
Balnlsssnent must be affirmed. Hurt, /.
eountv vs.. the State; ftom Rain,
ppsli., Aferognizance which recites thai
ndsd ns y and charged with, and con
" Tue tifense Of "dogging hogs |,