Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-24
TIE HIGH COURTS.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered ut the
Austin Term.
Special to the Gazette.
COURT OF APPEALS,


Special to the Gazette.
COURT OF APPEALS.
AUSTIN, Arril 23-The following
proceedings We're had in the court OF
appeals to-day:
Cases flirmed-Fondren VS.. State
from Ellis; Sanner w. State from Tar
rant; Hill w. State from Bowie; How
ard VS.. Moore from Grayson; Rolljn
vs.. State from Fannin; Texas & Pacific
Railroad w. Mcdonnell from Tar
rant.
Reversed and emanded-Fondren
VS. State from Ellis; Hoskins vs. HUI.
ling from Dallas; Texas d Pacific vs..
Wheat from rsrrant.
Reversed and dismissed Short ct al.
Va. State from Collin.
Appeal dismissed-Markle vs.. Scott
from Tarrant.
Cause einstated-Watson VS.. Cox
from Ellis; Woodward vs.. Griffith
from Denton.
The following cases were submitted
Bender w. State, from Collin.
On brief for the state--Texas & Pa.
cttc Railroad VS.. Morse, from Lamar;
on brlef for appellant-Mulkey and
Russell VS.. State, from Collin.
On briefs for both partics-Texas &
Pacific VS. Anderson, from Fannin.
On briefs for appellee Scheuber and
Hochstadter VS. Holcomb ct al.
On brief Tor appellee ct al.
W. Hughes ct al, from Graysou.
On briefs for both parlies-Fort
Worth ~ Denver Railroad vs.. johnson
aud Firm, from Clay.
On briefs for both parties-New
York Life Insurance Company vs.
Rohrberger, Moore 81 Co., from Gray
son.
On brief for appellant-Harvey VS.
Millikeu, from Parker.
The following motions TO dismiss an
peals were submiited-Frick vs.. State;
Beilener VS.. State; Thompson
vs.. state; Bunlooter VS.. State: Cooper
W. international & Great Northern
Railroad Company.
SUPREME COURT.
The proceedings in the supreme
court were as follows:
Motions submitted-Excoe vs. Cone.
land, to suppress brief aud dismiss An
peal; Austin II Northws stern Railway
vs. Mays, to dismiss appeal; Same W.
Cornwall, to dismiss appeal; Grubbs
vs. Blum, to dismiss appeal; State vs..
Wells, 10 give precedence 1.-TWO casesl,
Eikins VS.. Baker " Doian, To dismls.
appeal; international & Great North,
ern Railway vs. Brett, to strike out
parts of rule; Balm VS.. Balm, TO file
transcript, Mays VS.. Houston, to give
precedence; Newton vs. Newton, tc
give precedence; johnson Holman. Il
dismiss appeal; International d Grear
I press brief.
+ The following eases were referred t.
he commissioners of appeals:
Jones VS.. Andrews, from Rastrop
Panick vs.. Panick, from Williamson
, NIX d Story vs.. Cariwell, from Cald
well; Oppenheimer vs.. Robert. from
BeSar; Marx vs. LANCE. Lewy.S Co.
from Caldwell; Sinlier, Davis i Co. W.
Comparets ct al, rom Blanco; Dough
erty VS., Harris, from Wilson; Trania,
= W. Baker, from Guadalupe; Hand
Terry " Go. VI. Travis County, from
Itavis; ,Jeiitey W. Gaham, from
r noungi Friend ct al. vs.. Miller, iron
1 1oryeli; Gotham vs. Lay, from Coryell
t aop'nson vs. Robinson, from Brown
e Grant ct al. vs., Simmons ct al, fror
g Barnet; Schultz vs. Lamnert, fror
y TX Paso; Pol ct al. VS.. Poll,
rom San Saba; lsninger vs.
l Coles from Burnett; Bourlas va. n,
!. neila from Maverick; Frazier ct al V,
q Woodward ct al. from Coryell; Olive
!. vs.. Mahoney from McLennan; Loe
a W. Blum from Limestone; Bone v,
Wright from Falls; Ruclxer VS.. Spo
II ford from Bell; Grant Va. Simpso
Q rom Roberiaop; Hearne Va. Giilett
/. rom Robertson; Tran va. Rowan fror
e Hill; Guli, Colorado & Santa Fe Raj