Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-26

drhis; that such an intention tx.
dressed TO his purchaser will save the
sale from being fraudulent and void
whether any provision Was made
TO secure the purchase money TO
the creditors or not; that IL
will be upheld though the considera.
ton is paid TO the vendor, aud IL il LETT
To his option whether he will di,tri
butte il amongst the parties for whom
| IL was intended, or To lake the benefit
himself Held, fundamentally erro.
neuus, since 1t does not require the
purchaser to see To the application of
The purchase money. Reversed aud
remanded Willie, G. j
| Anderson VIZ. MAJ tipdale & Schulz,
| from Galveston cUunty.-The ohj.c.
ton urged TO The special charge given
was that 10 assumed facts as proved
aud was upon The weight of evidences
1t merely told the jury, In effect, that
a certain fact, If proved, would not ol
itself raise conclusive presumption
that the contract was rs claimed by
the plaintiff, or require settlement
upon the terms commended for by him.:
that they were authorized TO take
| into consideration certain other fucts
| If they were proved as tending to re.
but such presumption. Held, not
upon the weight of evidence, nor
amenate TO objection. Affirmed.
Willie, G. j.
Newhlansv VI. Dodson, from Washing
ton county. Objection service that one
of appellants was not well taken, since
! IL was subsequently cured 10y proper
service upon the other, who AS ator-
ney of record for both, accepted service
! q
1t was proper 10 pt rmit II physician, or
| in fact any one, To testify what n party
said to him in regard To his health ana
Is subject matter of inquiry. But the
declarations of the plaintiff that he re-
ceiv, d the wounds at the hands of de-
PENDANTS, was inadmissible as heresay.
Assignment of error which draws dis
tinctinu between eXpenses incurred be.
cause of sickess, and those Incurred on
account of wounds he received, Is ton
technical for consideration. Objections
to Jurors summoned, comes too iate al
ter the verdict. They must be made
trfore the cause proceeds trial.
Wherever Irrelevant testimony has
been admitted, it is not improper TO al.
low the other party TO, present, in re-
buttal, evidence, equally irrelevant,
which relates to the same matter
However correct, in the abstract, may
be instructions asked, if the law OF the
case was properly given in the general
chnrgp, the refusal OF instructions
asked Is not error. But the evidenc.
showing that at the time of the diff
Gully, the cotton about which 1t oc
CURED was IN the possession OF paiDtitl
and not defeudent; hence, the court
could not properly charge rs to The
right of person IN possession of prop
vrty to resist by force, an attempt |,
take II from him. The charge of thC
court, properly enr merating facb
which might be taken into considera
tinn in estimating damages, ana in
structed that all must be shown 10y
proper evidence. Such was not /
chnrge upon the weight Of evidence
Affirmed, Willis, {. j.
Iraylor vs. Townsend ct al, from
Colorado county That fraud, like any
other fact involved in the case, may
toe proved Ivy circunstantial evidence
is o well settled principle of Law. Nol
was it error TO charge that the sale
made by +. t. appellant was void, il
made with intent on the part of tn,
seller to hinder, delay and deiraud
creditors, if the intent be known to thu
purchaser, or could have been known
by the use of proper diligence, even
though the sale was made for valua
BILE consideration. The effect of Art
=, l65, Il. S., is not in conflict with this
view, since the statute does not dis
tinguish between actual and construc.
tive notice. The word "notice" must
be construed in its usual significance,
i. e. knowledge of all that is commu-
nicated to the purchaser, or that q
proper use of that information he could
asc, itain. Under the law as il eX-
listed before the revision, it was held
that knowledge of the fraud on the
part of the vendee must be proved, in
order 10 avoid the conveyance. But il
was held TO be the duty OF the court 10
charge the jury in a proper case that
actual knowledge need not lie proved,
If the purchaser had means of know
ing by ordinary diligence. While i'm
proper for the trial court to give I'M
due prominence to question involved
III the case, by repetition in the charge
such objection is not tenable ia tn :
case. A motion for new trial based
upon newly discovered evidence, UNI
l-ss diligence was shown, was proper.
~ oNtIIuleh. hIlFlleu, w lille, y. y
COURT OF APPEALS.
Farciola VS.. Bachelor Il Bro, from
Galveston county.--This WAS quit
instituted in the appellant (plaintiti
below in the Justices court of pre-
cinct No. >, in Galveston county,
against William Bachelor and Benia-
min Bachelor, as partners, for the
sum OF $l3o.l5 on open account. The
only question involved in the litiga-
ton was one of partnership. On that
the testimony was conflicting. In
such event the question Is one COM
mitted to the jury, and where there is
a shillcency of the evidence to which
the jury gave credence, this court can
not Interfere. The judgment is there
fore affirmed. Affirmed. White, p.
j.
Wheeler w. Houston & Texas Cen
trai railway, from Waller county,
me conditions of the appeal bond in
this case was the said Wheeler land
Thompson not appealing shall prose-
cute their appeal with effect, and shall
pay on AZ discharge all costs
which have accrued in the county
ana justices court or which may
accrue in the appellate court. A mo-
tion TO dismiss the appeal is based
| upon the reason that the conditions of
me appeal bond only require the sure.
yes on said bond TO pay all costs when!
IL should require them to satisfy and
pay OH me Judgment, which might be