The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-05-03

| Ol VI
grlef Is sufficient to require the strict
est good faith on the party dealing
with one in such condition. 1t is
good ground for setting aside the
agreement when one laboring under
| ignorance, imbeciliJy, distress or the
like parts with property at such an
inadequate price as shocks the sense
or Justice IN any correct thinking
mind. Reversed and remanded.
Volghtlander ct al VS.. Bratze; from
BeXar county.-Under article 1I22,
revised statutes, in all cases in which
the district court has jurisdiction.
that court has full authority to adj
minister any measure of relief, what
ever, whether in law or equity, that
could at common law be granted,
eltner by court of law, or in equity.
Affirmed.
Court Of Appeals.
Jones vs. state; from Travis coun-
ty:-The record herein failing to con-
tam statement CT facts, bill of ex-
ceptlons, assignments of errors, or
charge of the court, and the indfct-
ment being good, the judgment is af-
tirmed.-Willson, j.
French VS.. state; from Caldwell
county.-Conviction for violating ar
tlcle 39S, +. g., requiring the certifi-
cate or diploma to be filed with the
district clerk. Held, AS article $685.,
revised statutes, requires the certifi-
cate or diploma TO be filed with the
county clerk, there is no variance be-
tween the civil and penal statutes as
TO the place, and under article 6, penal
code, the civil statute must prevail
over the penal. Reversed and dis
missed.-Willson. j.
Mallett VS.. Hodges ct al; from La
mar county.-An officer who sells
| property on execution at a different
place from that named in the notice,
without adjournment to such place.
or consent of the execution debtor, he
is a trespasser alb initio and is liable
In an action of trespass for the full
value OF the property although he has
PAID over the proceeds OF sale. The
plalnnH in execution is responsible
| for the officers acts, which he either
directed or ratified. Reversed and re-
manded.-White, P. ].
| Wlseman VS.. state; from BaStrop.
county.-An Indictment or infcrnrAe
ton under article 645, penal code.
must set forth, at least in substance.
the words or acts constituting the of.
Tense, and should, in addition to this.
charge that such were uttered or
spoken in the presence of some one.
naming them or some Of them to
whom the words were uttered or spo
ken. Reversed and dismissed Will
son. j.
McNair VS., the state; from Comal
pOnnfU ~ anarf - fNlo
property alone has never been held
sufficient. Recent possession wheis
| circumstances demanded an eXplana-
ton has just been held sufficient to
sustain conviction. Where there is
other evidence than the corpus dellcti,
it may or may not be sufficient, de-
PENDANT is not required to prove his
lawful possession in the StricteSt
sense of the word. Reversed and re--
manded.-Hurt, J.
Williams vs. Gulf, Colorado and
Santa Fe railway; from Tarrant
county.-"Under the seventeenth sec
ton of our bill, of rights, notwith-
standing the property itself was not
actually taken, yet if it was damaged
by the building of a railroad upon
the street adjoining, the owner can
recover to the extent of such damage"
q Tex. Law Review, page 81. Re-
versed and remanded.-Hurt, j.
Lewis VS.. state; from Fayette eoun-
ty.-ln appellants motion for rehear-
ing he fails to set forth any new
grounds not already discussed by the
former opinion affirming the case, and
there being no good ground, the re-
hearing is refused.-Hurt, j.
Edwards VS.. the state; from Travis
county. the record contains
no statement of facts nor assignment
of errors, this court can only look to-
the Indictment and charge of the
court, and the former being good and
sufficient and the latter presenting
fairly the law. the Judgment is af-
firmed.-White, P. j.
Eakin VS.. Home insurance COM
pany; from Lamar county.-It is not
every GENERALIZATION of property by
the insured that will avoid policy of
insurance. To do so it must be a
gross and clear GENERALIZATION, such
as is, or must be presumed to be,
known to be such by the insured, and
not known to the insurer, and there
fore false and fraudulent. Reversed
- .
Creswell VS.. state; from Tarrant
county.-There is no law compelling
witnesses in a case to confer either
with the attorney for and the defend
ant as to their knowledge of the facts.
The evidence as to the dangerous
character of deceased was properly
excluded, there being no proper pre-
dictate laid for It's introduction. At
firmed.- Wilson, j.
Gordon VS.. state; from Live Oak
county.-The indictment being suffi-
cient exceptions thereto were proper
ly oyerruled. The application for
continuance was properly refused as
no due diligence was shown, besides
the desired testimony was supplied.
The evidence does not show man
slaughter or self defence. The charge
of the court was sufficient. Affirmed.
White, p. j.
Addington VS.. BrySon; from Cooke
county.--If error in forcing appellant
to trial, it could have been cured by
motion for new trial, but it devolved
on the applicant to show by affidavit
that his failure to ask for a continu-
ance under sworn statement at the
proper time was not his fault and
neglect and should be supported by
| affidavit of the desired witness and to
the facts he would have testified to,
or his own affidavit as to these facts
il the other affidavit could not be pro-
cured.-Affirmed OIL award.
Cook VS.. state; fran Dallas county.
The acts constituting an accomplish
are auxiliary only, all of which may
| be and are performed bY him anterior
and as inducements to the crime about
to be committed. The principal of
fender may not only perform some an
tecedent act in fiIrtherance of the
common purpose whether he be pres
ent where the main fact is to be COM
mitted or not. The evidence fails to
support the verdict and Judgment on
the ground of defendants guilty com
plicity as principal offender. Reversed
and remanded.- White, p. j.
Jones VS.. state; from Travis county.
THE question Is did the court assess
a punishment not warranted by law.