The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-03

Is not error FOR the court trying cause
to permit PLAINTIFFS counsel in the clos
ing argument, in reply to an argument
upon the law applicable to a case made
by defendants council to discuss the
same question and read and comment
on authorities applicable to
the question. The line and
method of argument to be pursued by |
counsel is left largely to the discretion |
OF the trial court, and clear abuse of
this discretion 10 the prejudice of the |
complaining party must he shown.
When the argument of defendants |
counsel complained Of, was in reply to |
argument of plaintiffs counsel, where |
language was bat little less, if not fully !
as Objectionable as that of defendants |
counsel, the error of the court in per
hitting it, is not sufficient to reverse on. |
The calling of the name, of a station, |
on coming TO a stop, is to be |
regarded rs an invitation to alight, and |
a passenger who on such summons |
leaves the ear, taking due caution to |
look around when practicable, may re- |
cover from the company in case he be |
injured by ignorantly stepping on an
unsuitable place: The Judgment was
for $4,000 for injuries received. and is !
held not to be excessive. Affirmed
Texas II Pacific railway VS.. Sixto
Garcia, from Harrison county. Opinion
by Stayton, ]. The only question
noticed in brief Of appellants counsel in
this case is that tho court below in
structed the jury that they might con-
slider money spent for his own board
during the time he was necessarily de-
tanned in attending to his son, the ap
pellee in the above case. There was
no proof of any specified sum so eX-
pended, except the sum of
$i5. No objection was made
to the evidence when offered.
Appellees home was on the extreme
western limits OF the State, he was
detained at Marshall, Texas, and at
Baton Rouge, La, for over three
months on account of the confinement
Of his minor son from injuries received
thorough the negligence of appellants
employees. Aa the proof went to the
jury without objection, it might be CON
sidered in connection with all the other
facts in the case II. e G. n. railway
vs.. Miller, 40 Texas, 1872. Affirmed.
! Chambers & Thigpew vs.. Cannon ct
| al; from Morris county. Opinion by
Willie. c.. The district court has iuris-
diction to restrain the sale of mule
claimed to be exempt. Il Texas Law
Review, 2l3). Having obtained iuri sdic-
ton by injunction, it was proper for the
court to take cognizance Of the cause for
all purposes of the suit. Courts OF
equity once acquiring jurisdiction of the
cause, the full merits of the controversy
as presented by either party, will be
adjudicated. In suit to reform an in
surance policy the court correctly or
dered payment of the amount due on
the policy after it was reformed. In
a suit for infringement of patent
right, the court correctly denied a recoV-
cry of the money stipulated under a
contract for the use ola patent. A de-
cree for payment OF rent, though the
complainant had clearly a remedy for
the recovery OF same was correct. An
injunction to stay the sale of property
under deed of trust having been dis.
solved by the district court, that court
properly rendered judgement for the
money secured by the deed, though
there was no plea in reconvention or
prayer for same. The district court hav-
ing, by injunction, acquired Jurisdiction
of cause originally cognizable before a
Justice of the peace, should retain it to
adludicate all the matters in controversy
as presented by either party. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Alexander VS.. the state; from Wood
county. Appellant prOsecutes this APP
peal from conviction for assault with
intent to murder Al. Banyon, for which
a penalty Of three years imprisonment
was assessed. There Is no statement OF
tacts contained in this record, and as the
questions raised on the record are all
such as can only be considered and de-
termiued on statement of facts, these
questions cannot be considered by thi.
court. Affirmed.
Richardson VS.. tho state; from Hen
dorsOn county. Defendant was tried
and convicted Of the theft of n pistol
/ At no N - ND .tnh LII
one Holloway, for which q penalty %,
five years imprisonment in the peuiton.
tiary was assessed. As the ayideuce As
amply sufficient To support tho iudg.
ment, and thero appears no error in the
record OF which appellant can Justly
complain, tho judgment is affirmed.
Miller W.. the state; from Wood
county. Appellant WAS convicted of IA,
theft of coat from one Jacobs, and hi.
punishment assessed ut two years i'm
prisonmont In the peuitenuary. As the
case Is presented 10 us on record il musI
hc affirmed, there being no statement al
facts or bill Of exceptions in the record.
and In their absence no error appear
pearing, Affirmed.
Howard W., tho state; from Sluitl
county. Appellant was convicted of M
assault with intOut to murderone Cartpi
johnson, and his punishment assessed
at two years imprisonment la the peui
tentiary. Tho charge of tho court WA.
sufficient on the facts, besides, no eN
ceptions thereto were taken. There WA.
no evidence on which appellant coul,
demand charge rs to manslaughter
and the court correctly refused To- uiy,
such charge. Affirmed.
RouudtIee W, the state; from Titu,
county. This Is an appeal from a CON
Nlcuun for false packing OF bal,
= OF cotton, for which fine of Sll
was assessed. The record contains n,
statement of facts nor bills ofexccptiops
that can he considered by this court
and tho indictment being sufficient ant
no error being apparent of record III,
judgment must bo and is Affirmed.
. jackson VS.. the state; from Smitl
county. Appellant was convicted OF al
aggravated assault and battery ON on,
Laura Ereeland, aud q fine of slno as
sessed. As al peace officer, acting unde
the verbal order oil the mayol
, of the town, appellant had N,
/, right to make the alleged arrest Tn,
charge of the court being found correct
and the evidence being conflicting, IN,
: verdict of the jury will not he disturbed
Affirmed.
= Stewart VS., the State; from Smitl
f.. county. Appellant was charged will
ana convicted of the thcit of two bale
= OF cotton and his punishment assesse,
, AZ Tour years in the penitentiary. IN,
r charge of tho court aud the evidenc,
a amply supports the verdict and iudg
d nent, aud as tho questions propnnndot
Z nS the foreman OF the jury 10 n witness
q Wuo hau neen recalled, wero not oV
D copied 60 at the time, they can NOT nov
o be considered, Affirmed. '''
;, Madison vs.. the State; from jefferson
y county. THIS case comes before M
I court On u motion to dismiss. hn,ans
b tbere Is no final Judgment i'm tho recer,
= 20 lhe effect that appellant be adindgs,
3 TO suffer death by being hung 6y lb
: neck until he lsdead, etc, and the snm