The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-04-19

WlChln the terms OF GndC SGdGutc. ID
Texas, 490: 45 Texas, 418. Reversed
and remanded.-West, j..
Wheeler VS.. Leeman, administrator;
from Fannin county.-The property
in controversy being valued at $500
upon the adoption of the constitution
in 1876, the Jurisdiction vested in the
county court, and consent of the par
ties interested does not confer JurlS-
diction upon the district court when
the amount in controversy is without
It's Jurisdiction. Reversed and cause
ordered to be transferred to the county
court. Opinion of Watts, j. adopted.
Cox VS.. Montgomery, from Tarrant
county.-In 1877, when this suit was
brought, the statute required the
suit to be instituted in the county
where the land, or a portion of it, is
situated, when the object of the suit
is for the recovery of the land, or
damages thereto" An action for the
81 >overy of the land means actions of
:tment, trespass to try title, or Il
! = to recover the land itself. Re-
Versed and remanded-OpiniOn by
Watts, j., adopted.
Foote VS.. O'Roark ct al; from Col
lin county.-The suit on the note by
PLAINTIFF in this case inuring to the
benefit of the true owner thereof, and
SuSpendS the running of the statute
of limitations as to them. The inter-
venors herein, not setting up new
cause of action, but claiming an inter
est in the cause of action asserted by
plaintiff, they are not barred The
debt not being barred, the mortgage
given to secure it is not barred. Affirm
ed.-Opinion by Watts, j., adopted.
Templeton VS.. Ryburn; from Ellis
county.-The clauses concluding arti
Gle $3.50, PaSchal Digest, have no allu-
sion to writs, notices, or precepts for
jurors, notices to road
overseers, etc. 1t was the intention
of the law to allow the sheriff COM
pensation in gross amount for trav-
cling in serving notices on road
overSeerS, and SummOning jurors for
the county, and they are not subject
to charge as items of service perform
ed, nor for mileage. Reversed and
dismissed Opinion of Walker, p. j.
Slayden VS.. Swoope; from Fannin
cour ty-Mrs. Lees statement and ac-
lions when executing the quit claim
deed might, under many circum-
stances, be competent evidence, throw
ing light upon the question of notice.
Cox, to whom Mrs. Lee made these
statements, ordered her to make the
deed to appellant. The deed so exc
cuted was then, by CoX's directions.
delivered to and received by Connally.
Under such facts the court. was au-
thorized to infer that Cox acted as
agent both of appellant and Connally.
The question of COX's relation to ap-
pellant was for the jury to determine.
Affirmed.-West, j.
Holland VS.. Focke & Wilkins; from
Limestone county. = Where the re-
cord shows that no Other. verdict than
the one rendered could have been rem
dered, error in the charge of the court
is considered abstract error, and is
not ground for a renewal. If the
deed of trust had been admitted an
other and different verdict could not
have been rendered, as the possession
of the goods under it by the trustee,
would not vest him with title there
to, nor protect them against their liza
bility to levy and sale by other credit
orS than the beneliciaries of the trust
deed The deed of trust was but a
security for the debts due the credit
ors named in it, and did not have the
effect to exempt the property from
seizure and effect to satisfy other
debts, subject to the mortgage or deed
of trust. Affirmed Opinion by
Walker, p. j., adopted.
Synopsis Of Opinions of the Court of
Appeals.
Blassingame VS.. state; from Ellis
county.-Appeal from a conviction
for disturbing the peace by loud and
vociferous language. The only ques-
ton arises on the rejection of testi-
mony. Held, although not material,
yet as it was not excepted to, nor pre-
scented to this court by proper bill of
Naturalization, J.
BurriS VS.. Farmers and Merchants
bank; from Lamar county-The only
vital question in the case arising on
the sufficiency of the plea of res adju-
dicata, and that plea not being sub
stantiated by the record, the record
showing no final Judgment in the first
case, we. can but affirm the case. AT
tirmed.-Willson, J.
Phillips VS.. state; from Cooke coun-
ty.-The verbal charge OF the court
not being excepted to when given,
and not until after the conviction,
the exception came too late to be
available. The new trial was properly
refused. The alleged newly discov-
cred evidence was but negative and
cumulative, and beyond this no suffi-
Gent diligence was shown by the mo-
ton. Atfirmed.-WillSon, J.
Freese VS.. state; from Lamar coun-
ty.-Six cases.-These being convic-
tions for violating the local option
law, and the voters of Lamar county,
at an election held for that purpose
having vacated the law, after the APP
peals were taken, and there being no
law to enforce these convictions, they
are reversed and dismissed Wilson,
J.
Jones VS.. state; from Lamar coun-
ty, and Eddlestein VS.. state; from La
mar county-Opinions by Wilson, j.
These cases being similar to the above
case of FreeSe VS.. state, the opinion
in that case applies in this, and the
judgments are reversed and dismissed
Kincaid VS.. Matthews; from Collin
county.-Judgment was recovered in
the Justices court for $46, and upon
appeal to the county court the judg-
ment rendered was for $50. Appel
lees move to dismiss the appeal be-
cause the amount in controversy is
less than 500 and this court has no
jurisdiction. Held, the motion must
be sustained. Appeal dismissed
White, p J.
Burns VS.. state; from Cooke county.
The following charge upon self de
tense is held good and sufficient:
Every person has the legal and law
full right to defend himself against the
unlawful attacks of another, and if
you believe, from the evidence, that
at the time the assault was made, Of
any was made at alp the defend
ant was acting in self defence, or that
from the circumstances, or acts of said
Scanland, he, the defendant, had rea-
sonable grounds, for fear of death, or
some serious bodily injury, from said
Scanland, you will acquit him." At
firmed.-White, P. J.
Womack VS.. Rose; from Lamar
county. Suit by Rose in Justices
court on account. Judgment for Wo-
mack on plea Ia reconyention for Sill.
On appeal to the county court, judg-
ment was rendered for Rose. The