The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-22
THE COURTS.
,0MAuSSr0NEnS


o Leopold Loeb VS.. Leon 81 IL. Blu
o from Limestone county. Reversed a
n remanded. Opinion by Judge Delan
0 Michael Etlinger VS.. r. w. Cat,
from Burnet county. Affirmed. L
laney, j.
D Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railw
GO. VS.. w. w. Styron, next frien
! from johnson county. Reversed al
remanded. Opinion by Judge Wat
Is. III. Meyers ct al VS.. Mary
Heath; from Tarrant county. Il
versed and remanded. Watts, j.
Meyers IL Exile VS.. Mary G. Heat
from Tarrant county. Reversed al
remanded. Watts, j.
Mix 81 story VS.. j. M. CardwelI
al; from Caldwell county. Affirme
Watts, j.
| E. w. Moore VS.. Elmira Jones ct a
from Falls county. Reversed and r
manded. Watts, j.
These decisions have to be adopte
by IL supreme court to be final.
In the case of ID. Noble Rowan v
Shepard, Stevens 81 Co., in error frol
BraZoria county. opinion by presidin
Judge Walker, the Judgment of tn
lower court is reversed and it is rem
commended that 1t be rendered in az
cordance with the opinion of tni
court. The case was referred to thi
court from the court of appeals. Tn
Judgment Was a general one with a.
order for the execution to run agains
the property of the defendant, VIII,
was a nonresident (residing in New
York; and h I'd not been PERSONAL,
served with process within the state
Held: That the judgment should hav,
been limited in its operations to the
property that the plaintiff had at
tached. The general result of this
opinion on the question of Jurisdiction
by the county court to foreclose lie1
upon lands levied on by attachment is
in conflict with the decisions of the
court of appeals Gin Shandy VS.. Cou.
raleS ct al. 1st Texas Law Review, 30S
and Newton VS.. Heidenheimer, Texas
Law Reporter, vol. 740), holding
that the jurisdiction to do SO does not
exist; and comedies with a counter
decision made on that question by the
supreme court in IIillebrand VS.. Nc
Mahon ct al. SO Texas, 451 the latter
holding that justices of the peace have
jurisdiction 10 enforce a lien of that
character.
This suit was by attachment by
S. S. IL Co. against Rowan on a debt
1926, and at the institution of the
suit they charged the track of land
in controversy belonged to defend
ants. Defendants failed to answer,
and Judgment by default was entered
against for amount of the suit with
foreclosure of the alleged attachment
lien upon said land and ordering exc
cution to issue for such balance as re-
unpaid after the sale OF the
land thus condemned.
Defendant Rowan prOSecuteS this
writ of error, and among other grounds
assigns as error want not of jurisdic-
5ion of the county court to authorize
said attachment lien against said land.
The decision is 81 pages,
DISTRICT COURT.
In this court yesterday was COM
the trial of EX-Comptro Her
Brown for alleged defaults in his ac-
counts as comptroller, the particulars
Of which have already been made famil
lar to the public. A jury was waived,
defendants general demurrer was
overruled, and some evidence was in
PRODUCED. The defense is based on the
claim that Colonel Browns admins
tration is improperly charged wltha c.
counts which come from his predeceS-
sor in Office. Acknowledgement Tenn
pleton is prosecuting the case on the
part of the state, aud Messrs. Goodsell
and Dickinson of Falls county, and
D. Archer, ESQ.,, of this city appear for
the defendants and the suretieS on his
bond.
The following cases were decided
yesterday:
Houston 81 Texas Central Railway
company VS.. 10. Beason, from Grayson
county; affirmed. Opinion by Asso-
ciate Justice Stayton..
Central Texas and N. w. Railway
company VS.. State of Texas, from
Ellis county; affirmed. Opinion by
Chief Justice Willie.
Thomas Todd ct al. VS.. Branter T.
Masterson, from Burnet county; af-
firmed. Opinion by Associate Justice
Stayton.
Nix & Story vs.. J. NJ. Cardwell ct
al, from Caldwell county; affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Watts adopted.
Myers e Eakle VS.. Mary @. Heath,
from Tarrant county; reversed and
Opinion by Judge Watts
adopted.
b. IL. Meyers ct al. VS.. Mary G.
Heath, from Tarrant county; reversed
and remanded. Opinion by Judge
Watts adopted.
Michael Effinger VS.. r. W. Gates,
from Burnet county; affirmed. Opln-
T,,1
Leopold Loeb VS.. Leon & III. Blum,
from Limestone county; reversed and
remanded Opinion by Judge Delaney
adopted.
w S. Montgomery VS.. S. G. Ether
idge, from Williamson county; al
firmed on certificate.
In. the Beason case there was verdict
for Beason for $500 and costs. Bea-
son was struck by passing car while
standing on the depot platform IN
Denison, injuring his left foot and
ankle so that amputation was neces-
sary. BeaSon refused to answer inter
rogations as TO whether the accident
was not his fault, whether drunk or
not at the time, or had been drinking
during the day or evening previous
The court refused to make charge
requested, and instructed the jury as
follows: eff you believe, from the
evidence, that defendant had fail
opportunity to answer the in
terrogatories propounded to him by
defendant, and refused to do so, then
such refusal is to be taken as con
fession by him that he was drunk al
the time of the accident" Waving
all consideration, say thh court, of the
fact that Beason did answer the inter
rogatoreis within eight days at
ter he refused to answer then
and nearly two years before
the case was tried it becomes neceSsa'
ry to inquire whether the interrogato.
ry. Was it not your own fault anC
carelessneSs? was such as the law
permits propounded to witness, OF
requires even a party to suit TO an
swer. The objection to the question
is not that it is leading; but is, that Il
calls for the opinion of the witness
and not for facts. Held: The eXaml
nation of the witness, though a party
is to he made as would be the eXami
nation of any other witness, excep
that to such a witness a leading ques
ton may be put; and the testlmon.
of such a witness must be received o.
rejected under the same rules whlcl
apply to the evidence of any othe
witness.
AS to conflict in the evidence it i
unimportant say the court what Bea
sons condition was if the injury t
hun resulted from the negligence o
the company or its employees, unles
his own negligence contributed to tn
injury. The judgemunt is affirmed
l - ~ oosa of rho CaUtral rToYa