The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-01-18
NO.24.

manner must be made in that par
tlcular manner, yet it has
its exceptions. In order that
bond be rendered void
for non-conformity with the statute
1t must be so made by express enact
ment, or must by the color of law by
evasion of the statute be intended as
fraud on the obligors, or it must he
made more onerous upon the parties
than the statute requires. 2 Texas
2oO, Texas l.. \ simple omission of
the above mentioned subdivisions is
not vital to the validity of the bond
as 1t makes the conditions of the bond
less onerous. Wilson J.
BabcOck x We'll VS.. Milmo Nation
al Bank; from Webb county.-This
is suit brought by appellee against
appellants and one Burbank, as MAX
ers of promissory note. Burbank
did not answer, but appellant answer
ed by general denial and as special
defenses plead the following: That
Burbank was principal and they were
only accommodation sureties, without
valuable consideration, that without
their knowledge or consent after
they signed and for valuable consid-
Grafton appellee extended the time of
payment, that when the note
reached maturity Burbank was able
to pay it, but that now he was
insolvent and was when suit was in
stituted; that because the extension
was granted, appellants were dis
charged from liability. The record
disclosed that the exceptions taken
by plaintiff to this answer included
their general denial, and that the
court in sustaining these exceptions
struck out the entire answer. Held,
The plea was good one and the court
erred in striking it out. The plea pre-
Sented valid defense and was good
under article 1862. revised statutes.
The court therefore erred in
its ruling. While it 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 same manner will not
effect their discharge as well as the
general rule that mere indulgence to
the debtor, or giving time without
binding agreement to the contrary
will not release the surety; yet. if
without the knowledge or consent of
the surety, or sureties, the creditor
gives an extension of time to the
principal, by a credit beyond the
stipulated time, the surety is
SuretieS are only liable to the extent
of the specific terms agreed upon and
no subsequent agreement between the
principal and the creditor without the
consent-Qf the sureties can change
that liability. Parol evidence to prove
suretyship is admissible although the
note may itself show. them to be prin-
cipals. Reversed and remanded.-
Wilson, J.
Mckinney & Carroll VS.. state; ap-
peal from Webb county.-This is an
appeal from judgment of conviction
for keeping disorderly house. There
was evidence that the house was oc-
cupied by common prostitutes who
boarded with appellants. The infor-
nation charges the offense of keeping
disorderly house in the strict Ian
guage of the statute, and must be con-
sidered sufficient to sustain the con-
viction. Art. 339 Penal Code.l The
bill of exceptions which appellants
took to the action of the court in over
ruling the challenge for cause urged
against certain jurors does not show
that those jurors sat in either trial
of this same cause or of other cases in
which the same questions of fact were
involved and the bill of exceptions is
not sufficient (sub. 5, art. 35l2 rev.
stats.). The evidence supports the
verdict. Affirmed.-White, p. j.
Garcia VS.. state; from Cameron
county. This cause comes before the
court upon motion to dismiss the ap-
peal because the reconizance states
no offense, Appellant was tried and
convicted upon information alleging
that appellant used towards Mrs.
Brooks cloud and vociferous obscene,
vulgar and indecent language" and
also charged that he cursed
and abused her, and even
threatened her life. Is charged that
the acts were committed near a pri-
vate residence near a public street.
The recognizance states that appel
liant was convicted of disturbing the
peace. Held, Disturbing the peace"
co uowine is no offense known to our
laws, and for this reason she appeal is
dismissed. Appeal dismissed
P. j.