The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-03-30
Synopsis of Opinions of Court of Appeals

.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio
railway VS.. w. C. Watson; from Washing
ton county. With regard to the market
value of goods shipped, ana lost or de-
stroycd during passage, the following rules
are tcnable: If from the smallness Of the
place or the scarcity of the article, OF other
reasons. there is no market price, the real
value at the time and place must be ascer-
tanned, taking into consideration that
which would have influenced the market
price al Tie place OF manufacture, cost Of
carriage, and reasonable sum for import
er's profit. Where two parties have made
a contract, which one of them has broken,
the damages which the other party ought
TO receive in respect of such breach Of con-
tract should be such as may be fairly and
reasonably considered either arising nat
urally from such breach or such as may be
reasonably supposed to have been in the
contemplation OF both parties at the time
they made the contract as to the probable
results Of breach of IL. -
Bach. Muse & Co. VS.. G. A. Ginochio I;
from Harris county. In the computation
Of time the day upon which the act was
done, from which the time Is 10 be COM
puted. ordinarily must be excluded from
the count, aud applies 10 the time in which
appeal bonds are TO be filed Rehearing
granted. Opinion of Watts c., adopted.
III. l.. Dreyer VS.. state; from Nueces
county. Articles 1856 and 456l, If applied
10 sheep at all, do not apply to marks, but
TO brands, only. The jury were instructed,
"If you believe from all the cir
cumstanoes that the sale was not
made in good faith, but only 10
cover n fraudulent taking. then such
ale would be no defense" They were
manifestiv erroneous. The sale might have
been base and fraudulent deceit on the
mart Of Olivares and yet Dreyer might have
been an innocent and honest purchaser.
Reversed and remandcd. White, y. /.
Thomas COhe avs. the State; from Con
zales county. Ike evidence Of other wit
res-ss need not c0rrObOrate SEINE particular
f,ct testified 20 by the accomplice, but Il
must tend 70 establish the guilt Of the de
fendrut. Reversed and remnndcd. Hurt, ].
Al. Rhodes vs. the State; from Gonzales
county. There il NJ form Il words
nec--sa-r % such charge a. % brings
In he question. but It must containthe GER
frfufv 10 which the testimony must tend.
Pever-ed and remanded. Winkleri.
m Al. McWhu1ter W. the State from
Vavarro county. The court below charged
fbn furr e. follows the possession 81 re-
Gently stolen property j. not conclusive
evidence 81 TIE quit - tue Teraul htfiu-
such possession, but such possession, II
rr0ren. ruav he taken into consideration as
4 rircurnsfance, which may enable you %
Fsfermiue the guilt 0r Innocence q the &C.
med r This charge j. evidently upon the
ueirfIf Of evidence. Reversed and reminded
Henrv o. Rogers ". the State; from
rvis county. Where en- Indictment IL
ard substituted, the record must speak
Isrt "afirruntively that the substitution
= -qposef b. the county attorney vas
-rrH 10 may b. urged, however. thrt
Ha-. rIr.ears from the record enough RON ]
10 presume that IN fau the I
1fiur uns made II ~ fact The court I
81 ! order and ndiudre the PROSTITUTION, ]
- No fnfictnerf IN the cese, hence /
. crrrof fndulrt in r-esull rtions. ne /
...,I-f mus sre.k thst fart direc-ly and /
.iF-snativsly. HeTerssd sud refnandsd- /
5o.-th F-n.kIin " Hsu-y Hu-lburf
- 49, county. TIE ruls at
-. - ~. derT the tiil. n his laDdl1r1 |
'-rI,rr frrher ths ter1nt rs IN r1sses-
- f--rr-r tts le1se -ns made q nct- - /
- - - 49, n rrl.s-lrte1 rcsset-
- Il II "A r|ref f---r nrtnttlrr ~ TIE
- r.rlsrrf urllel1 ttIt e1ItrTsr
-s.sss ii =, q ti,s i--ilord e y MS