Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-29
pose q u withou. her consent. Re

! tonic railway Va. Slagner 4 Co. From
! Caldwell county. Rchearing refused
Original opinion sustained. The Mo
bile n Ohio railway undertook and
agreed 30 transport certain goods Il
appellccs at Lullng, Texas, at certain
specified contract price, and appel
lants' road undertook 10 carry out the
said contract. When the goods
reached LuliDg appellants held tn,
goods until sli0.35. alleged te he due
for excessive weightabo their freight
rate was paid. Appellee brought thi.
suit 10 recover the excessive amount
as charged. Held, tho appellant com
pany being parties 10 the contract by
Undertaking 10 carry II out, are liable
for its breach. When the case came
up before the county court the appel
lants pleaded matters In reconvention,
which pleas were ovcrruled. Held
correct: defendant can not plead In
reconvcution In the county court on
appeal, when such plea was not filed
In the Justices court. Affirmed.
Reed ct al. vs.. Lockett ct al From
johnson county. On rohearlng orig
inal opinion sustained. This was u
suit for "a new trial and injunction
brought by appcllees against appel
lants. The appellants here recover d
Judgment In the court below by de
fault against Lockctt as partner Of
Lockett & Bramlcy. Lockett had en-
pioyed counsel 10 file an answer, but
they failed 10 DO 40 by reason Of u
mistake, etc. Execution was Issued
on the Judgment by default and levied
upon Lockett's property his home
~ fHl.fu ali Ia hN / nAl1.tf and
wife 10 cnJoin the sale and set aside
the Judgment against Lockett. Judg-
ment below was for appeIlees perpetu-
niing the injunction, and setting aside
the Judgment for costs ctc. Held,
after careful inspection Of the record,
We fail H. see that any error has been
committed Of which appellants can In
anywise justly complain. Affirmed.
Schrainm ct al. ~. Nolte--FrOn
Guadalupe county. Ga rehcaring.
Original opiniOH sustained, April 20,
1872. T.. Schramni, sr., father of de-
PENDANT, and defendant ninde II note to
appellee rs follows 1--WE Jointly and
severely promise 10 pay, after six
months notice Ia given, To August
Noltc, Sr., a resident Of Guadalupe
county Texas, the sum Of 5000 in gold
coin, with ten per cent interest per
annum, for value received. IL. Sch
ramm. Sr T.. Schrnmm, Jr.n This
note was credited with interest 10
April 90, 1875; 20 April, 1876, SIS. f..
ST., died October II, 1872.
The defendant widow of T.. Schramm,
ST., plead limitation. Defendant
plead limitation, and that he was but
Il surety Of one Dickson, for whom the
money was borrowed. The trial re-
suited In verdict and Judgment for
appellee for amount due on the note.
with ten per cent interest from date.
Held, Notwithstanding It's form, the
note would mature In q reasonable
time, and That would lie reasonable
time IL II question for the jury. The
court below having submitted this
question to the jury fairly. and find.
ing no error In their finding, the iudg-
ment IL affirmed.
Strauss VS.. the Statc-F From Jackson
county. This comes before the court
on motion 10 dismiss the appeal for
want Of final Judgment. Appellant
was convicted of selling Intoxicating
liquors contrary to law, and was fined
therefor $50 and five daysin jail. From
this conviction lie appeals. Held,
there Is no such final Judgment In the
record as Is required by artitle 500 OF
of the Code Of Criminal Procedure. 1t
appears from thercoord that appellant
WIS fined $40 on the trial of the cause,
and there Is no Judgment of the court
that he "be committed to Iall until
such fine and costs are paid" Appeal
dismissed.
ns,as,ia INF 4 La ~.
county. Appellant was convicted OF
the theft of II heiicr and sentenced "a
two years Imprisonment In the pcni.
Tertiary. Although appellant in ting
court below was granted ten days from
the adjournment Of court within
which to ille "a statement of iacs, yet
that time elapsed and he failed To 50
| file the statement, and comes before
| this court upon n recort containing
neither u statement of facts nor bill
of exceptions, Held, taking the re
cord before w the Judgment must b,
affirmed. The indictment Is In every
respect sufficient, and In the ubseuc,
of statement Of fncts we mist pre-
sumo that everything necessary wa,
proven, and that the charge was appli
cable 10 the facts, Affirmed
Griffin w, the State, From For
Bend county. Appellant was con.
| victed of an aggravated assault and
battery upon Mrs. Feytag, aud hi
| punishment assessed ut ilne of Sl0t
| and twonty-tour hours Imprisonment
From this conviction he appeals, but
comes before this court with "A recor,
which fails TO show that the Statement
of facts was signed during the term d
court at which the cause was tried
Held, II appearing that such was no
| done, this court will not consider Tia,
cause with Wow To the facts, but vii
presume that everything necessary tt
| sustain the verdict and Judgment WA
| proven. Affirmed.
Moriand VS.. the State From Gregg
county. This Is an appeal from a CON
! viction for arson. Held, |. rho evi
dence supports the verdict, ., Taken
ns u whole the charge Is correct [Ct
App, ia; Id 1901 3, This WAS
stronger ease than that of Williams Al
Tex, 20a. There was no effort in thi
case To avoid OF explain the damaging
facts which all pointed TO appellant
| guilt, 4. The charges sufficiently OK
planned the general principles of Law
| with reference to the force and eiloc
of oircumstantial evidence, aud ha,
defendant desired further elaboru
ton of the subject he should have pre-
sentcd his Instructions embodyinl
such additional views Affirmed.
Boottcher Va, Heidenhcimcr Bws.-
| From Galveston county This Il