Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-28
THE HIGH COURTS.
syllabus of Opinions Rendered at the
Galveston Term. 1854.
I,eportcd specially for the Gazette
SUPREME COURT.

| SUPREME CON Nl'
Narson Va French, from Galveston
county Suit for damages ny appel
liant against appellee for renting GER
rnin houses near bis own for purposes
of prostitution, and for Injunction 10
prevent their further occupation for
! that purpu-e The proof showed the
use az the houses as stated, ana tuat
ihey had been so used for long ume
IL was Objected that the court erred IN
charging in substance that II the APP
RELIANT knew with reasonable Ger
lainty, the use To when hls property
was put. and continued to rent II rom
month 10 month IN ~ rsuns whom he
knew put IL to such use, then IL so
uspd its use would constitute
nuisance for when appellant would
he responsible. Held, that the charge
was not incorrect. such injury was
shown in this case ~ entitled appellee
4, recover, and the judgment IL af-
firmed. Affirmed Siayton, j.
I.abadIe Vs. Hawley, from Galveston
county.--It Is u recognized rule 81 law
that ala agent l. personally liable to
third persons for doing something
which he should not have done, but
not for no, doing something which he
should haze done. In the latter case
the agent Is Responsible only to his
employer. The rule il also stated and
in full harmony with that here an
nouuced in eth Ohio lstate) 232
Whatever damages resulted 10 appel
lee from the u.e of the house, and the
erection Of the range by W.. the rentee.
cannot he visited upon the appellant,
the agent who rented ". the premises.
Reversed and rem anded. Siayton, j.
Hail ~. Collins & Douglas, from
Houston county This was snsction to
remove cloud from title to 1853 acres OF
land which Is part of the same tract
involved la the case Of Wo0dson W..
Collins q Douglas, reported in 56
Texas, III. 1t Is essentially The same
case, involves the same qu, stions and
comes up N the same statement Of
facts a close inspection of the record
discloses no reason for the court 10 al
ter it's opinion, and As in the case re-
ferred to, the judgment in
this case il reversed and
the cause remanded. Stayton. j.
COURT or APPEALS.
Fisher d Weis vs.. BozarIh and Nc
Donald x Co from Washington cum
ty.-At former day of this term, the
appeal in this case was dismissed for
want of juri diction. the amount in-
volved being but ss2-that being the
value of the property on which the
distress warrant was levied, and upon
which Mcdonald 81 Go. claimed II
prior lein 4 motion for reheaTing is
made, supported by the affidavit of the
officer Itvyin. the distress warrant,
showing that il was his custom 10
place upon property levied upon by
him, minimum valuation, and that
the property was Of a value within the
Jurisdiction of the court. The rehear
ing IL granted upon such show ing. and
the Judgment il reversed and dismissed
~ To- the intervenUrs, Mcdonald & Co,
and upon correct showing in the
record is Otherwise affirmed. Ordered
accordingly. Wilson, j.
wilkins vs.. the State, from Austin
county That the general charge of
the c0urt In criminal case omitted
the doctrine Of the presumption Of
innocence il not such error ~ Will
authorize reversal, hut the converse
/. the invariable rule when the court |
has refused q requested charge upon |
that subject The motion FOR new trial |
must be made within ille time pre- |
scribed by law and mt the triai-term, |
and such motion or amended motion |
II made at "a subsequent term comes too |
late and should be overruled. When |
II is conclusively shown 10y ailiidavits
supporting motion for new trial that
the Indictment WAS not read to the
Jury, and the defendant neither plead
ed n II, nor y plea entered, though the
judgment itself failing TO recite that
the Indictment was read, but that
there was plea Of mot guilty. this
court must hold that the indictment
was not read. Reversed aud re-
mauded. Wilson, j.
Washington IL Cedric vs.. State,
from Galveston cOunty.-This was
joint trial Under joint Indictment
for murder with u conviction for muir
der in the second degree, the punish
ment being assessed AZ fifteen years
each in the pcnitentiary. lhe state
ment OF facts. by file mark appear u
hive been flied long after The ad.
journmeut uf court, and the lapse of
the time allowed 10y The Judge. In or
der 10 avoid the effect OF this asserted
oversight, the appellants present
statement OF the trial judge TO the
/, fleet that in writing the lile.mark, as
lac frequently aud ordinarily did, after
examining Il statement of facts di3.
agree d To, lie inadvertently wrote the
month OF august instead OF June y
| Held, that the statement cannot con-
lIadict the record, and the statement Of
| facts cannot be considered. The pro.
ceedings being otherwise correct, the