The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-23
.s ope Of defendants pleas. Reversed and

as one OF defendants pleas. Reversed and
Franks Ell al. VS.. Chapman ct al, from
Atascosa county; opinion by Stayton; j..
The question for determination y whether
or not district courts, since the adoption OF J
the present constitution, Fave |
the minors so as to give the Irrmer the |
right to avail itself OF payment by the lat
ter. 2. The court erred IN charging the
Jury that plaintiffs had right to place
their cotton upon their cotton yard, and in
doing so, they would not, on this account.
be guilty Of negligence, although said cot
ton yard was in close proximity TO d.
fendant's road bed. Reversed and Re
manded.
| COURT OF APPEALS.
| Prather Va. the State, from Bosque
county. Opinion delivered by Wilson, }.
This is an appeal from conviction for
violating the local option law, which at the
time was In force in Bosque county. Since
the conviction, by vote Of the citizens of
Bosaue county at an election held for the
purpose, the local option law has been abol-
ished, and this case must be reversed and
dismissed.
Williams VS.. the State. from Atascosa
county. Appellant was convicted OF the
theft of mare and colt, the property of one
Pachaca. Held lst, although the confessions
vet, as they were not objected to, nor ex-
ceptions taken, the error cannot now be
considered. Second, there was no error in
the charge of the court as given, and none
!. in refusing the instructions asked. AT
iirmed.
Fitzhugh VS.. Cause ct al, from Dallas
county. This case comes before the court
upon motion to set aside Judgment OF
, affirmance on certificate and allow appel
/, lun m 10 trun nplI
cause being shown for not filing the tran
, script in time, the motion must be refused.
] Motion overruled.
Maddox VS.. the State, from NJ ilam county.
On re.hearing. 0pinion by Hunt ]. At a
former day OF this term this case was re-
versed and dismissed because the indic'-
ment was fatally detective and would not
support verdict: Appellant moves Tor
1 rehearing and desires to withdraw his ap
peal Held. The indictment being fatally
insufficient verdict and judgment resting
upon it. such will not be permitted to stand.
|. Rehearing refused:
| Pullman Palace Car company vs. Dargan,
3 from Dallas county. Opinion by Hurt, ].
4 Judgment by default was rendered against
{ appellant in a suit upon an itemiZed &C
0 count for the value of the contents OF a
, valise. Suit against appellant as con-
O mon carrier. The petitiOned alleged the
company to be domiciled vt Chicago, that
:. II. W. Thompson, of Dallas, was its local
v agent. After Judgment the company ap.
: peared and moved to set aside the judy
J ment, alleging. that the loss, il any, oc
|. Cured in New Mexico that at the time OF
O the service of the citation the company had
:. no agent in Dallas county that as soon as
# notice reached the company an agent wa.
sent out to attend to the suit. The answer
r further alleges, ard the ticket is Sc,
out in full, that by the terms o.
Q said ticket the company was moi
n to be liable for any loss of yaluables or bag
q gage whatever. The motion was sworn Il
# by an agent of the company. Held: TIT
If motion should have been granted. /. /
O set up good cause of defence, and 2. a goot
}. reason is shown by the company why /
a made no appearance. Reversed and re
}. manded.
i. White VS.. the State, from Wise county
1t Opinion by Wilson, j, L. 10 sustain
3, conviction under Art. 697, p. c.. it devolve
a upon the state to prove, among othe
a facts, that the timber was no
If the property of defendant. Q6 Texas 1907
Ie -Four different modes of making proof Q
n this essential fact are prescribed Up.
1t Art. 700 8. The state relied upon the las
ri of these. viz: by verbal testimony of It'll
1t or of notorious use and possession of tn
rs land by some other person than defendant.
10 4. The evidence shows that the possession
m and use OF the land by defendant and q
of notorious as was the possession and use {
n. the same by the other party claiming Il
,e The court therefore erred in not chargip
', the jury that If they believed from the ev
il dence that defendant at the time of cuttin
IA and use Of the land, the evidenC
or that another person, at the same time ha
er not notorious possession and use would &C
n. to sufficient proof that defendant was nc
mr. the owner of the land. 5. Where two PEI
n. sons are at the same time in possession
20 land and claiming it adversely, to eac
lie other, other evidence Lesides the mere po
al session and claim OF the parties, is require
n. to determine the question as to which on
claimant has the inferior title. and III
NJ til such other evidence is adduced, the la
nd regards the claim Of one as entitled to th
err same consideration as that of the othe
To Reversed and remanded.
ye McFall vs.. City OF Austin; from Tray
q. county. Opinion by Wilson, j. BY til
IT. charter of the city of Austin the office
IN city engineer is created, and it is provide
"a that this officer shall receive salary Shc
he shall not exceed 81 200 per annum. Hell,
its this provision does not fix the salary at al
lis definite sum, but only prescribes the max
e. mum of it. 1t remained for the city cOui
70 Gil to determine the amount of IL
H. salary, and in doing this they coul
M fix 1t at any amount less ths
~ 200. (Love VS.. Mayor of Jersey City.
To Vr om, 40 N. j., 456l. A municipal corp
,is ration may, unless restrained by its cha
10. ter, reduce or otherwise regulate the salar
n. OF It's officers, according to its view of exp
to diency and right. The city council, thcr
IN fore, had the right to reduce the salary
Irt appellant during his term of ofic
ic- A"rineu'
~ Colonel Chauncey 7. Rogers, of Corr
Ia Pennsylvania, q battle scared We o. an of ii
-. J" SD Pennsylvania volunteers. cut his thro
TO tho nt har dav wbila ohoy;py Ua s,,, l.