The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-12-14
COURT OF APPEALS.


Synopsis of Opinions OF the court Oh +Ap
peals, Tyler Term, 1882.
I,enoir ct al. VS.. Rosenthal ct al. from
Falls county. In order that the acts OF al
agent may be binding upon the principa
the ratification must be made with a full
knowledge of all the facts qnd circum
stances. 1t will not be obligatory Oil Tit
principal, though the facts may be limo
Gently concealed or inadvertently misrep
resented. Tie agent may have requested
the goods charged to him or the agent o
the principal, yet that would not bind him
The right of purchase must be specifically
shown by his authority as agent. Reversed
aud remanded. Hurt, j.
International g. Great Northern railway
VS.. Malone from Hays county. Crops
growing upon land and the systsm Of
drainage are parts of the land, and injuries
to these are injuries to the lands. Testi
mony of non-experts as to the necessity iol
the erection of additional culverts anc
sluices, and as to their character and loca
tion, is not admissible. Under art. ALL
Revised Statutes, the construction OF slnices
and culyerts is matter exclusively within
the discretion of TIE railroad company, i
it fails in its duty the only remedy Is and
they are liable for the injury done. Ne'
yersed and remanded. Wilson, j.
Freeman VS.. the State; from Smith
county. Appellant, during his confinement.
in 1ail and pending this appeal, escaped
fl ON custody and was pursued short dis
lance and captured. The states attorney
moves to dismiss the appeal. Held, the
moment appellant escapes from custody
this court ceases to have jurisdiction OF the
appeal in his case, and unless he shows that
he voluntarily returned his appeal Will be
dismissed. Appeal dismissed. White, D.
Galveston, Houston e. Henderson railway
VS., Steward; from Harris county. This il
suit for damages brought by the father Of
minor son, who was killed while EN-
ployed as brakeman on appellants road
Suit for services of the son, his funeral ex
penses, etc., and judgment for S4lI: He'd
but two questions present themselves: |.
Does the evidence show negligence upon
the part of plaintiffs? z; Must plaintlli.
verdict having answered the questions, and
finding no error in their verdict, the Judg'
ment is affirmed. Hurt, j:
Schraum ct al. VS.. Nalte; from Guada-
lupe county. Suit was brought on the fol-
lowing note: 1--WE jointly and eev'
orally promise to pay, alter six months' no
tice is given TO August Nolte, sr. q resident o.
Guadalupe county, the sum OF $500 in gold
coin, with 10 per cent. interest per nnnuu
for value received" verdict and Judgment
for appellee for amount due, etc. Held
notwithstanding the form OF the note, II
would mature in q reasonable time, and
what constitutes a reasonable time is ioi
the Jury to determine. Affirmed.
Scruggs VS.. Cleveland; from Van Zandi
county. Trial of the right OF property
which Cleveland levied upon as the prop
erty of Downing, and which ScTuggs
claimed by deed of assignment from Down.
ING. The evidence of both Scruggs and
Downing shows that the deed of assign
ment was not executed and delivered 80 as
10 be complete until after the levy Of the
attachment. The QuestioE Of its validity
Is not before us. The charge Of the court
is fair and impartial, there is no error IN
the Judgment, and the cause must be al
firmed. Wilson, ].
Whitley VS.. the State; from Hamilton
county. Two cases, both for theft OF cattle.
are here consolidated In neither record
do we find statement Of facts or bill ol
exceptions, and aprellant can only rely
upon error in the charge OF tbeinsufhciency
oil the Indictment The indictment We
hold TO be sufficient. The charge Of the
court when taken as a whole cannot DC
complained OF. The record utterly falls 70
show US error, and the judgment must be
affirmed Wilson. ].
county. Suit By appellant for the value
Of certain wares and Wagl Judgment
for appellees. Court Adjourned Nay 2Jfh.
The statement OF facts and bill OF eLcef'-
tions In the record were not hied until june
lst. There il nothing IN the record Which
shows any order OF court granting leeve 70
fls such instruments after the aalourn-
meat OF court. We cannot therefore con-
sider them. In their absence W ilil 20
find auv error and can only Affirm the
judgment. White, p.
johnson "a. Parker; from TarTant county
Appellant took up two estrays, delivered
them 10 q county C0mmls-iunery Eii0 -
turned them according TO Law 20 the c1uuts
eisrk- They were delivered then - appel.
lant. who held them subiect % order, an1
delivered them up as soon o. the proi'ei
Affidavit was made. sun Tor wrongful con
version. Hold. % maintain a. acilon -
fr7ver and conversion. defendant must haFs
Converted The property 70 his Own Use, ~
hsve done come nct with q wrongful intent
There being no evidence Of a wrongful -
tsrf. the eriseoce fails % support t1e 1uce
ruerf Psrerssd ard reuan1e1- HErtY ].
sirkef. Davis 4 CO. vs. Bemau; from Dei-
Irs county. The agent Of npusllaut. VIII
orf suthority from them. employed Lernnn
- his l.hs arerf'sl clerk- This r. slit 10
his snlsrr. He'd l. As esch month -
- AIS doe q The end q esch rnonth. ne
rferrse 81 liritntion begins 20 ru1 frurn ne
I'd ri erch month. q rhe cyurt erred IN
rnfIfrrro rive these charEeE 4. II r1rtI
- rIrlics that En- nce1t = artlnt unoef
rr.-r1ni curfrnct ua1e ia ms rrIflclfA-- -
A - frs n1Iirs 81 s1ct fact1 g. III rri In
nrrr irrrirT 81 70 suc1 cuItrac 111 n.
fe-n.s IL Vii 81 - pei cc1l-rci IN -
--i e. j flIs --r1t 49, IS sur