The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-03

the ca,e " Cleveland W. Dnegan Bros; @
rexhs Law Review, i2), holds contrary
deierminat on, 10 10 overruled Re'hearlnR
rpfu 81.
Nav Va the si.te; from McLennan coun-
"a. Ssinoling may h. committed, either
where the Lawful acquisition IN by he mean,
nnmtd, and the intent Us 10 appropriate
the properly acquired 10 ,re use NJ the
ants acquiring, or where The unlnwiui
acquisition by the means named,wlth Tue
intent 20 Destroy or impair ihs rishts
Of the party omitted % thu prop
cry. Both intsn y may occur In the
Same sction, but II ~ not ntctsssry ihs'
thsy SHOULD 10 cpmpleta either ~ the
uOue'. A party having porsession, chafge
o. cOitr0l ui the properly, hiss huthcleht.
ownership when the suit creating the da-
feuss does nct require other evidence thereof
| 10 srindling ths alleged ownor need nave
no ri got title or oven beneficiary Interest IN
the properly, II he has pohiteeion, charge
o. control Evidence OF th0 nat lrial oct ~
prnte,t OF dfail, BY q foreign uiicef, Is nd-
missnble. yet must only Dr ihkep as r'i-
deuoo 0f the facts therein stated Noihing
but ,he demand upon, aud toe Ieinsa 10
/ pay by the drnwes, being fecitedi ~ docs
not prove the drawer whs not the agent Of
tho dtagse, nor that the drawee had no
| ~ ids OF me drawer IN his hAnds. Az the
court admitted the evidence, Without lim-
ting iis,fr.ct aud the exen' the Jury were
authorized TO consider IL, Il vas reversible
error Reversed and remAnded
| Wosiern u ion Telegraph company vs..
! Connolly; IRON 4arris county. Where IL
| telegfaphed A. III you want place onue
| first Train. Answer and the tel gram was
not delivered until too late, Hnd even ate
| -, had ordered the company ot 10 deliver
| &c u not already Gelivred. Held: The meas
ure II damage recoverable by a rom the
telegraph company naf toe reasonable
value 0i time loss Or him Ia going 10 ana
! returning from the place Hhufe the situ1-
alton vas offered, AID Che rtosJuhbln e.
pentes Of the irip. 4 judgment Tor the
| salary which A would nave received Tor
| nue month was unduiA1g led. Only such
! damages a. directly ssd naiu ally resulted
! lrJm the breach Vt contract ana Eea91nanly
| supposed 20 have ,Xittsd IN the contemplh'
| tion OF the parties there Q, eau be re covered.
| Reversed and remGnded.
| I,sediker ct I've. Ratio ct al; tr0m Calves
! ton .unty. Where tns suiti brought on
! WHIT In known as an "irou.clBd nO.o" aud
! the Judgment sets out the prope conissaion
OF judgment by an attorney, as provided
! for Ia the note, holds judgment ia Teon ~
| maintained, and although tne note was
| signed Ia the firm name, yet as The record
does not dice osa but that each member oi
| the firm acquies in he signing. ana
| judgment aeninst them Individually and ~
a firm YES brought. Where the judgment
| l. ny Confession. 10 10 not neCstBafy 70 bl-
! iegp that the account Ia iuet, as such ale
gstion 10 not esaenii6l % the judgment.
| Affirmed.
| N.gton w. Hsidheimef, ct al; from Ga
yc.ton country. The cole ques lon p.e.
sen ed ~, "hss the count, court iur,sdic-
ton to Gu force lien upon land. created Nv
| the levy Of an at,rchmeniY' This ideut'-
cal question has alrsscy been decided IN
the affirmative by this court; (lsL Texas
Law Rrge~, 309) II having been held hat
q sl.k Nt.d n asaI
land, wsu suit to iorecloss lien upon
| land, aud tins unity court hs no iurl sdic-
| siol foi the enforcement OF Buch law.
The supreme court (lst Texas Law Review,
3O6) have eince heid that justices OF tAe
! peace nave sucn jurisoic ion The court OF
appeals carefully feviews the OF inion II the
| supreme court sud no d that the reasons
insisted upcn by the letter, are applicable
alike t. county and justices courts; m
| utter careful aud exhaustive opinion,
| thoroughly reviewing The constitution aud
laws applicable to the case, and nlso the
casa Gi Scripture va. Kent, decided by tue
| Commls-.o u OF nppe-les bold that = sui by
sttechmsi I, levied upon luud, is = SUIT 20
| ionoiOse lien upon such ana, oud under
tine o1nsiitutDn ard lass a district court
ma s,'e jurisdiction ior such purposes Re-
yersed and remsnned
Mitchell, VS. S etc: conviction from Rob
erison county. Conviction for theft ard
question OF allbi being more fsvOr.bls 30
the defense, than proper ne can not com
plain. No appeal 81 exceptions being re-
served TO the action OF the court, refusing
the motion Tor eontil,nurnc., this court vii
no. notice 'he Gu-s.iSg, oh Am nans,s, oorr
ty. Al Indictment fof unlawful card plsy-
ing, slleg ng that the playing was in a pub
no place, must silege the facts constituting
,Iioh place public place, or it IL insufficient.
Hhsre the state abandoned cer,sso sllegs.
sions In the indictment, q charge On such
n legations is error. Reversed and dig
missed.
Houston, EAet & West Texas Railway va.
Ewing. from Harrio county. A citation
| which does not itste the filing OF the petit
ton nor the docket no IN Der Of the cause, 10
| insuf2 cent. The file plumber of the case
should be inserted in the body or face OF
the citation. Reversed ard r. msnded.