The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-07


the same court against G. &. Ander,
prOmisSary notes.
Court Of Appeals.
Judgments were affirmed yesterday
in the following cases:
Thomas VS.. state; from Lamar
county.-EmbeZzlement.
Watson VS.. state; from NueceS
county.-Forgery.
Hill VS.. state; from Walker county.
Walker VS.. state; from Hill county.
-Habeas corpus case.
James Stanley VS.. state; from Colo
RADIO county.-Stanley was convicted
and sentenced to the death penalty
for killing IA boy sixteen years old
named Robt. S. Strickland, by cutting
his head open with an ak while the
| boy was in bed.
Thompson VS.. Burnham; from Nc
Lehman county.
Abeel VS.. Mathews, Massey &
Blades; from McLennan county.
Grant q Berry VS.. Williams &
TahOir; from Ellis county.
Clip Burnham VS.. state and Bill
| Burnham VS.. state; from Hopkins
county.
Davis VS.. state; from eLagaca
county.
Hannell VS.. state; from Hill county.
KirkSey VS.. state: from Parker
county.
Packer VS.. Baggett, from Bell coun-
ty; Echel VS.. McKie, from Navarro
county; Ransford VS.. Lea, from Gray
son; II. 81 L. g. railway company VS..
Conrad, from Limestone county.
Appeal dismissed: In Slater VS..
state, from Marion county; and IN M.
ID. Hart VS.. state from Hunt county,.
The latter was sentenced for life.
Rehearing refused: In Bloomor-
ven VS.. state from Ellis county.
Motion to set aside Judgment and
for certiorari granted in Prather VS.
stated from Bosque county.
Reversed and remanded:-C Carroll
VS.. Watson, from Milan county; Har-
rison VS.. State Central bank, and
Campbell and Jones VS.. same bank.
and Campbell, Ragland and Jones VS..
same, all from McLennan county;
Pablo Dovilina VS.. state, from Webb
county; Hammell VS.. state, from
Falls county; Couch ct al VS.. Parker,
from Coleman county; L. c. R'y Co.
VS.. Morris, from Shackelford county !;
Heidenheimer VS.. Felker, from Mitch
ell county; Hays VS.. state, from Har-
ris county, and Boiler VS.. state, from
Hill county.
Reversed and dismissed at cost of
appellant:-Fort Worth and Denver
City railway company VS.. HogSett ct
al, from Wise county; w. w. Pierce
VS.. state, from Washington county.
Submitted on motion to dismiss the
appeal, and on briefs of the state SUBJ
ject to motion.
Jack McGee VS.. State from San
.Iacinto.-Submitted on brief for the
state
Dunn, Murray & lesson VS.. Wood
ward submitted on brief for both
parties.
Duncan Z. Mccall VS.. state from
Milan county. Submitted on brief
and oral argument for both parties.
In the two cases, Campbell and
Jones, and Campbell, Ragland and
Jones VS.. State Central bank the cases
are remanded, that the plaintiffs in
error may, if they choose, avail them
selves Of the defense of uSury. The
cases differ from that of Harrison VS..
State Central bank, just decided,
where such defense WAS waived by
pleading other Wilson. j.
In the case OF the Texas Central
railway VS.. Morris, by an express stip-
ulation of contract between Morris
and the railroad agent, it was agreed
tnat before Morris should recover any
damages which might result to his
cattle in transit, he should first give
notice of his claim for such damage
in writing to some officer of the rail
road or nearest station agent efore
the stock were moved from the place
of destination or place of delivery, land
before said stock were mingled with
other stock. Held: Such stipulation
is legal and binding as was decided by
court of commissioners of appeals
April Is, 1882, in the case of the Mis-
souri, Pacific railroad VS.. Harris.
White, p. j.
In Fort Worth and Denver City
railroad company VS.. Hogsett ct al,
it appears that Hogsett and Smith
company were the owners of a large
tract of land over and through which
appellants road was located. Com
missioners were appointed and the
damage appraised at $425, to which
award both sides filed objections, ap-
pellant claiming that they would not
exceed 500. Judgment was for 800,
and divesting right of way out of defen-
dants to land shown by plat cop
led into Judgment Motion for new
trial was overruled and case appeal
ed. Held AS in case decided May 26,
1883, by this court, G. II. III. & S. A.
r. r. company VS.. Mud Creek l. A.
G. NJ hnt
statement provided for by article
4182, revised statutes, is the lnitiatory
step to give Jurisdiction. The desig-
nation of the land to be condemned
must be sufficiently certain to identi-
fly the particular portion of the land
over which the right of way is
sought-White, p. j.
). Harrison VS.. Central bank.-It is
hthl that the defense of usury is a
personal privilege which is virtually
wal ed by pleading other matters of
defense, and that the usurious nature
of the contract will not be considered
even when it is apparent upon the
face of the contract. 1t was error in
the court below to make the judg
ment bear interest at two per cent per
month as stipulated in the contract,
InlS DclllS SIcdtGI ldbc Indu Ino law
allows. But this error has been
cured by appellee by filing herein
remittitur of interest upon said judg-
ment in excess of eight per cent per
annum.-W Wilson, j.
In Heidenheimer VS.. Felker, it is
held that the profits arising from a
mercantile business carried on by the
husband or wife during the marriage
are the community property. White,
P.J.
In Hart VS.. state the appellant was
convicted of murder IN the first degree
with a life term in the penitcntiary
assessed against him as punishment.
The court below failed to sentence
him and for this omission the assis-
can't attorney-general moves to dis
miss the appeal. Held: This court
should not entertain an appeal before
sentence has been pronounced.-Hurt,
j.
District Court.
A. s. Walker, Presiding; j. p. Hart, Clerk