Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-01

fiIttt w NV UiFOh w. ~ UtAtfiE AlVn
the question, the evidence OF the APP
pellecs rs to their intention is admissi-
ble. Wharton's Law of Ey., 4s2-50S; y
Gray, 5O6. Reversed and rcmanded.
Texas & New Orleans Railway va.
Sutor--From Harris county. Opinion
delivered by Justice West. (See this
ease in So Tex, 1861. II was held on
the former appeal that the appellant
had voluntarily consented TO the occu-
paney of land by appellant without
compensation other than the benefit
that would accrue 60 him in common
with all the propefty-owners In the
city from the completion of the road;
that this net was, in effect, ~, es-
TOPPED In part or some kind Of
partial dedication OF the land
for the public use. II was also held
that appellee could not, especially
after the lapse OF seventeen years, he
allowed damages for the use Of the land.
The verdict upon this appeal contain
ing an item OF damages for such use
the ease must be reversed. Held, APP
pellants failure TO construct, repair
aud keep open the necessary bitches
that II ought TO have kept open, would
not operate forfeiture of the
right Of way that appellee bad preyi-
ously voluntarily granted. Appellee
Is entitled to whatever loss, injury or
damage MS lac can prove he has suffered
by reason of the neglect or tortious acts
OF appellant, by causing or allowing
appeiiee's property 10 be overlooked.
Reversed and remanded.
Galveston. Harrisburg aud San An
tonic Railway VS.. Tempe From Col
orado county Opinion by Chief JUS
tice Willie. The vital question briefly
presented is as IN the masters liability
Tor injuries to his servant, received
while voluntarily engaged in a dan
gerous work under the orders of the
master, the servant having equal
means with the master of knowing the
extent of the danger. Held, the evil
dence shown by the transcript makes
out a ease of All employe who, after
having an opportunity of becomingac-
quainted with the risks of the situa-
ton, voluntarily accepts them, and of
one Injured while voluntarily at work
in u place, the dangers OF which he
had the same means of knowing rs did
his master, and under such state of
facts the judgment should be for the
master. Reversed and remanded.
fThe opinion of which the above il
a syllabus is able and exhaustive,
and discusses the authori-
ties pro aud con, but space prevents
more lengthy syllabus. Rep.
COURT or APPEALS.
Thomas ct al. vs.. the state-From
Dewitt county. Opinion on rehear~
ing delivered by White, p. j. Some
days ago this cause was reversed and
dismissed because the forfeited bond
obligated the principal to appear ut a
term of the district court, which did
not conform with the times and terms
authorized Ivy statute for holding such
court in De Witt county; the bond was
therefore held void. Sec. Texas Law
Review, p,-. The states at
torney now makes motion for rehear-
ing, and produces an additional trans
cript in conformity with law, showing
that prior TO the execution of the for
ieited bail bond the district Judge had
appointed IL special term of the court
TO be held in the county, and this
bond bound the principal obligor for
his appearance at such special term.
Held, had the clerk of the lower court
done his duty this inform alton would
have been before lis, and the Judgment
would then have been. as IL is now,
reversed, and here rendered so ms that
the obligors may ouly be held jointly
instead of severally, bound Tor the
amount due, they in the terms of said
bond bound 'ioiutly and scyerally,n
and not separately, for the penalty.
II Tex, IA; c. c. p, art. SO. Re
versed and rendered.
Mills vs. the state-trom Brazoria
county. Opinion delivered by Judge
Hurt. 1t il not necessary that the
Indictment should charge all the
ofiense, IN order TO the admission of
evidence TO prove that n party not on
trial was present, knowing the unlaw-
full intent of such person, aided him
4 by acts, or encouraged him by words
1 or gestures for ii the party is present
1 and knows of the unlawful intent, aids
| by acts or encourages by words OF
/ gestures the party who actually
commits the unlawful act, he is held +,
/ principal actor and can he prosecute,
and convicted as such, and such bein,
the case the rule announced in Me
Kcan VS.. the State Il CT. App, 6Sl
and Sims vs.. the State 90 CT. App.
does not apply, ms that rule has refer
/ ence To accomplices. In an indict
ment for assault with intent to murder
the commission TO allege that the rs
1 saWlt was made with 'nalice afore
thnaghtr Is not fatal to the indiet
ment, [lo Tex, lo.] Affirmed,