The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-01-25

Tor. Tho bouadadcs II the lind ~ sct
inril iu lhe pntitInn are irfr"prOlthr con.
hictns, ard ns the iudRmeni should he
confined ~ tle description m The promises
hs uven iu tho CtitIti1n, Tho Judgment cane
not be rendered upon The yrfiltt l9und,
aud lhe Judgment Va reversed ana re-
mnn tell Wulkor,p.j,
iichensttin Bros. a. tI.vg Lo"Cusl@n
Elias. from Galveston county. hH
suit upon four pOmIsaOry notes, alcfed 1p
be due, aud an attachment was run UPON
property all FED 10 have been lr'uhuleniy
egnvpvci 10 hou ron. Appellees claim thtt
they had Compounded with appelianls,nhd
.hoyed their receipt IN iull. Appellants
claim that the receipt IN full was gwen Dy
them through fraud upon the part OF APP
pellees. The only issue raised was rs 70
the fraudulent representations or nov mace
by aypelees. This question was larry ana
pToperly submitted 10 the jury by the
charge Of tae court; they passed upon the
evidence, which was conflicting. lherc
does not appear TO be any error IN their
finding. aud under repeated decisions where
the verdict is not clearly wrong, 1t ought To
he affirmed, Affirmed. Walker, p. j.
Warren VS.. Gray and wife; from Navarro
county. Where the land in controversy
can be identified and definitely be ascer-
tgined, if the facts as stated in the petition
lie true, general demurrer does not ile'
and it is sufficient thar such identification
be made bv reference to other surveys ana
the map OF the county Partition may be
Joined in the same proceeding with trespass
TO try title in order. to determine the
boundary between the parties. demurrer
should not be sustained to the petition
which is sufficient to establish the boundary
line bel ween the parties. A petition which
AYERS purchase and conveyance from the
owner of the land, the recording oil the
d ed and the continued occupancy OF the
land as a homestead, is not obnoxious to
the exception that it shows that plaintiff
deraisns title from the sovereignty OF the
soil and fails to connect Herewith. Inc
record shows no error, the evidence amply
supports the verdict and the charge of the
court is not obnoxious. Affirmed.
Walker, p.i.
synopsis of Opinions of the Court OF
Appeals, Galveston Term, 1883.
Babcocll & We'll VS.. Milmo Nationa
Bank, from Webb county. This is suit
brought by appellee against appellants and
one Burbank, as makers of promissory
note. Burbank did not answer, but appel
lants answered by general denial, and as
special deiences, plead the following: That
Burbank was principal, ard they were
only accommodation surcties, without Valu-
able consideration; that without their
knowledge or consent after they signed,
and for valuable consideration, appellee
extended the time of payment; that when
the note reached maturity Burbank was
able to pay it, but that now he was in
yoYed, and was when this suit was lnstl-
tuted; that because the extension was
granted appellants were discharged from
liability. The record disclosed that. the
exceptions taken by plaintiff to this an
swer included their general denial, and
that the court in sustaining these excep'
;ions struck out the entire answer. Held,
the plea was good one, and the court
erred in striking 1t out. The plea pre-
scented a valid defense, and was good under
Art. 1902 Rev. Stats. The court therefore
erred in its ruling. While II
is the general rule that no
contract or agreement subsequently made
between the principal on the note and the
creditor, which does not alter or change the
sureties, liability or affect their rights in
some manner, will not affect their dis
charge, as well as the general rule that
mere indulgence TO the debtor, or giving
time without binding agreement 10 the
will not release the surety, yet, If
without the knowledge or consent OF the
surety or sureties, the creditor give
credit beyond the stipulated time, the
surety is discharged from his liability.
are only liaolc to the extent OF she
specific terms agreed upon, and no SUISSE
quent agreement between the principal
and the creditor without the consent OF the
sureties can change that liability. Parole
evidence to prove suretyGhip is admissible,
the note may itself show them 10
be principals. Reversed ana renamed,
Wilson, j.
Mckinney and Carroll W. the STATE from
Webb county. This is an appeal from
Judgment of conviction for keeping DIS
orderly house. There was EVIDENCE that
HE house was occupied by common Prosti-
-utes, who boarded with appellants. The
charged the ollense OF Keeping
4 disorderly house in the strict language Oh
he statute, and must be considered sutii-
,ient to sustain the Convict!sni cart. 5SJ,
Penal Code) The Gill of exceptions which
appellants took to the action OF the court
10 overruling the challenges fercause urged
against certain jurors does not show that
hose Jurors sat in either former tTlal OF
his same cause or OF other cases IN when
he same questions OF fact were involved, !
md the bill of exception is not suilcient
Sub. 5, EFT. 30l2, Rev. Stats) The evidence !
supports the verdict. Affirmed. Hhlte,
}. /. .-
Mall vs.. the State from Victoria county.
IN this cause the state, by her attorney,
moves the court to dismiss this appeal upon, /
among various ground, the following
That no appeal is allowed in such cases.
That the recognizance fails to state an OIL
ense known TO the law. That the writ oil
lGbeas corpus was not the proper remedy,
and because recognizance gives 30 lurls- I
fiction in such appeals. Held, upon sew I
raj grounds, this appeal must be dismissed,
10 notice of appeal was given nor entered /
II record, anu tAe wit Oh AaOSAs corpus 4
,annot be made use of TO supply the place 4
II an appeal because the offsnse named in /
he recognizancs, that of disturbing the 1
,eaoe, 10 nomine, is not an ofiense known |
% the law, and because the applicant is at
aree upon recognizauce, which in cases OF
,ppeal in habeas corpus trials deprives THIS
,ourt OF jurisdiction. p CT. App, $50;
u. App, Z6; CT. App, 2eS) Appeal as
q S sSse ct al. vs.. Coanty of Dewitt;
rom Dewitt county. This Is an appeal
rom Judgment rendered upon a bond
xecuted by appellants for county CONVICT
hire. Inc conditions OF the bond, as pre-
,cribed by subdivisions and art. 1901,
Rev. Statutes), are left out, but as to all
other requirements the statute Is strictly
'oiloged. Held, while IL is the general
rule that statutory bonds, wren directed 70
be made in a particular manner, must DC
made 10 that particular manner, yet II has
its exceptions In order that bond pc
rendered Void for non-cOniormity with the
statute Il must be so made by express en-
lciment, or must, by the color OF law by
Evasion of the statrte, be intended as a
fraud on the obligOrs, or II must be made
more onerOus upon the partiss than the
.t.ttIte requires: q Tex. 80; ? Tex, ~. A
simple omission OF the above mentioned
.ubiiyisions is not vital 70 the validity Of
he bond, as il makes the conditions OF me
bond less Oncrous. Afhrmed. W l,Ison, ,.
Garcia W. TIE State; from Cameron
,oantv. This cause comes before the court
loon motion TO dismiss the appesl because
ne recoKuizsnce states no Ofense. Appel
ant vas tired and convicted upon informA.
lion alleging that appellant used TOWARD
Nrs. Brooks loud and vOciferous, obscene,
vulEar and indecent language, ana also
.hareed that be cursed and abused her, ane