The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-14
COURT az APPEALS.
s,0ovsis OF opinions OF the Court of APP
meals, Tyler Term, 1SS:

SoDpeNtniel et al. 's. -"N%hASAauuSIi iIulu
o,.is county. Letters of administration
AN, court in another state do not give
.,bt hy virtue Of such to party to sue in
NJ. state upon claim due the state, I'M
-. the title is directly vested into the ad-
'.;ni,tration as when made payable to the
DEMONSTRATING partyS or when the iudg-
'a,t has been taken in his name. Where
transcript Of judgment in another
.,rrt is made the, basis of recovery and
'rcb transcript shows that the judgment
,L.raip rendered was so done without legal
eu,,;ce or citation, the judgment being void
no.nnot he made valid basis for recovery.
fp,"'vsrSed and remanded. Wilson, i.
Parks ct al. VS.. Billiard ct al; from Ellis
.,anty. Where party brings an action
~ damages on two separate counts for two
wDS,,rate breaches of contract and only re-
s,ysra on one, and wherever on that count
no Judgment is incorrect because the con-
.,sct ALLEGED in the petition differed from
he one proven, yet, if the losing party on
hat count comes and requests the court to
Arm the cause if a reversal cannot be had
an the count upon which judgment was
,sndered, and an aifirmance on one count
and reversal on another cannot be had,
ne Judgment in toto will be affirmed.
Affirmed. Hurt. j.
sCraddock VS.. the State; from Dallas
conntv. Upon convictions for violating the
sunday law, Craddock appealed and en-
tered into rccognizancc, The papers in the
case being destroyed, the county attorney,
uithout notice to Craddock, substituted the
n.pers with the exception Of the recogniz-
pnce and carried the cases up where the
snneal was dismissed for want of a recog-
n,yance in the record. Mandate and cxecu.
ZION was issued, which was the first notice
Paddock had of the action of the court.
Vr seeks super,edeas, asking the court to
at aside the Judgment rendered. with
draw the mandate and execution
issued, and to send the case back
and place it upon the same foot.
ing as il was before substitution OF the lost
papers. Upon the above facts being shown
t0thc court, the superedess is granted, the
mandate and execution Withdrawn and the
Injunction pcrpetuated. By the court.
Blum ct al VS.. Ferguson; from Morr.
county. A Judgment in favor OF defend
mand of a payment pleaded by defendant
when he does not Claim such relief by his
peadings is not authorized by law. a
valid Judgment is one authorized by and
conforming to the pleadings of the parties,
and must be within the Drayer.for relief and
that sought; Q3 Texas, 325; ~ Texas, 2j7.,
! Reversed and remanded. Wilson, j.
George vs.. the State; from Delta county,
An information charging aggravated as
sault as follows is sufficient: THAT
Lee George, male person, with force and
arms, did commit an aggravated assault in
and upon the person of q female
BY then and there violently, forcibly and
indeCently taking hold Of and handling
with indecent familiarity the said
with his hands, etc. Affirmed. White, y. ]
Texas & Pacific railway company VS.
Hurless; from Bowie county. IL con.
ductor on railroad by his negligence Oh
dsobedence of Instructions in the course
his employment causes the railroad com
pany to suffer direct loss by such negligence
or dsobedience of orders the company lie
gally claim an offset against any clam fol
wages that the conductor may have, suct
amour. as the loss or damages amounts to
as caused by plaintiffs neglect or di,obedi
once Of duty. A contract of service is mu'
tual The employer has claim agains
the employed for his neglect of duty. Re
versed and remauded. Wilson, /.
McMahan VS.. the State; from Rains
county. 1t is discretionary with the cour
whether witness be put under the rule OF
not. In the exercise of such discretion, I'm
less clear case of abuse is shown, tn,
courts action will not be disturbed.
must be shown to have prejudiced SOM
right the defendant. The charge of tn,
court being the law of the case the cour
did not err in refusing to give certain specia
Instructions asked by defendant, the sam'
tontravening the law rs correctly given il
The charge of the court. Affirmed. Hurt, j
lsh VS.. the State; from Navarro county
Although the court erred in charging if tn
horse was taken from the possession of Jen
Kings Jones owning the horse and livinI
With jennings, yet the charge, though i'm
roper, i, not shown to have prejudiced an,
night of the defendant, and that Of itsel
PRESENTS no good ground forreversal. The
proof of name is amply sufficient and M
rror is apparent. Affirmed. Wilson, ].
Crittenden ct oil. vs.. Robinson ct al; from
Wise county. A levy WAS made upon tn
property alleged to belong to appellants b.
purchase from Eoth, who purchased from
FoindeIter. The conveyances were attacke
IS fraudulent Held upon the affidavit
and writ of attachment being shown tn
mrden shifted. The charge presents n
material error, tho evidence supports tn
ierdict, other errors assigned are not tens
ae, and the only error apparent, that OF tai
ng,costs sgsinst sureties, mot being assigne
and not being a fundamental error canno
o. considered. Affirmed. White, p. j,
Friday VS.. the State; from Angeliu
eunty. Bills of exceptions not signed b,
ue Judge cannot be considered by us an
Sould not be contained in the record
here being no assignment of errors, funds
mental errors in tine charge can alone b
nnl9fHnFnR Il. ,,,1,, h.. 10,
lspurely ciccumstautial that the rule ar
pies; 1851 App, 452 and 653). The charge,
erroneous as TO implied malice, does no
WlSe reversal where the conviction is fC
mnslaughter. Affirmed. White, p. j.
rowder VS.. the State; from Hopkin
comfy. Crowdcr was convicted Of stealth
anorse in Hopkins county. Upon beip
aprehended with the horse in Delta count
atl being told that they were looking ic
sun horse rs he had, he fled, leaving th
hcse behind him, Held, this in come,
ua with other eliminating facts was col
sIsive OF his guilt. AS to the indictmen
twas good one; the charge Of the coul
presented the law of the case; there is II
eTor apparent, and the Judgment
ARMED, Hurt, !.
'sborn & Co. VS.. Jeiiries ct al; from Da
"a county. Appellants sued Better
&c upon n written endorsement and qua
amc ola note given by Jeifries for m,
chlety sold him. The agreement was tn,
spellees We're to have the collection OF th
nos. When the notes became due III
mixer was solvent and could have pal
Yam, but they were not presented, M
teoection sought. Shortly after maturit
th' maker Of tho note became insolven
Vsorn 4 Co. now seek to hold the guarai
toiliable. The above facts do not sho
su. miami lili..a.,n.. L.. Ill. n,.ialla M