Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-02

Prepared specially for THE GAZETTE by N. p
Jackson, Reporter OF the Appellate Courts
of Texas.
SUPREME COURT.
Ryan VS.. Ryan Il al, appeal from
Tarrant county. The wife sued her
husband for debt, and ran an attach.
ment. Her husbands creditors inter.
vened, setting up that the proceedings
in the suit proper were collusive: that
plaintiff and defendant in the case
proper were wife and husband. that
the debts and property levied on were
both community. Upon this state of
case, the court charged that the wife
because of her conjugal relation TO the
husband, the defendant in the original
or suit proper, was not entitled to nm
attachment as against the community
property and thereby acquire rights
Superior 10 other creditors, who held
just debts against the communlty
Under the marital laws Ia force in this
state, the wife can maintain n anti
against her husband to pro. ect her sem
arate property. 81 Texas, All. and 52
Texas, 29S, are state cases in polnt
Reversed and remanded. West. I.
Ieliff ct al. VS.. Jennings. apnenl
from Collin county. The suit was for
damage for the Use of defamatorv Ian.
guage to the. injury of appellee's char
acter. The language rs set forth in
the amended petition differed from
that set up in the original, related only
as to the averment, colloquium on IN
nuendo. Such amendment did NOT
change the causc of action-(2s Tex..
129)-that n witness did not testify To-
all that was alleged in the petition to
have been the defamatory lanpuoge
used, Is no reason to exclude his eyi-
dence, If the matters to which he did
testify were not variant from the allie.
cations themselves. AS shown Inv the
evidence ii was intended by the an.
pellant TO convey the idea by her
statement that. as she was said 10 he
the appellee was, in her estimation. n
common prostitute. Held, admissi.
BILE. And 1t was proper to admit eyj.
dence OF statements of like import
made after the institution Of the suit
ny appellant, inasmuch as it tended
to show malice. Charges refased
were, in substances: "Words charging
woman with unchasteness are not
actionable per Sc, and to authorize re-.
covery, it must be shown that the
words charged were spoken, uttered.
&c, and so spoken, uttered, &c. with
intent TO injure the character of the
impeached party and so under.
stood in consequence of which
damage was done to character. n y =
III the language so used, with such in.
tent to injure, but did not in fact
entail damage, you will find for dc.
PENDANT" Held correct. 1t was error
to charge that appellee could not. on
account of her wounded feelings and
enfeebled condition and incapacity to
perform manual labor recover, but the
loss to her must be to her reputation
and sustained through the
conduct of Others" Wounded
feelings, enfeebled health and incapac.
ity to perform manual labor were
alleged and there was evidence to sus.
tain the view that this condition was
the result of the Islander used. Under
the averments, il such damage arose
to the appellee by reason of such words
spoken, they were actionable. If the
Sian derous words were maliciously
spoken not only actual but exemplary
damages We're recoverable. Charge t.
the converse however, to be revised,
should be excepted to. The jury being
authorized to presume that person
offending intends the probable results
of his voluntary acts, IL is within the
province of the jury to determine that
the act was prompted by malice, aud
assess exemplary damage. Where
evidence has been admitted to bear
only upon particular issue, the Jury
should be instructed to consider it for
that purpose only. To that extent 1t
was error to refuse instructions asked.
There is no statutory law which
| changes the common law rule on the
subject that "a husband and wife are
deemed one person in law, and the
husband is liable TO the same measure
of pecuniary damages for the torts OF
the wife as though the act were his
own" Reversed and remanded. Stay
ton, J.
Grimm VS.. Childress, appeal from
Guadalupe county. Upon the face OF
the deed it appeared that the consid.
Grafton was paid by Mrs. b. and the
land vested in her as separate estate,
Defendant attempted to show that il
was conveyed TO her charged with q
trust for benefit of her husband. ii
was shown that the consideration was
n negro slave, and the conflict In
evidence arose az to the true owner
ship of the slave. There was proof 10y
defendant that the slave was given tC
Mrs. b. by her husbands father to be
held by her for his use, and for the
\ purpose of protecting the negro from
the husbands debts. Whether B.'s
interest was absolute in title or for life
does not appear. If in,
vested with title as claimed
by him, and he conveyed the negro In
consideration for the land, without
proof Of other intention, the law pre-
sunes his intention to present his wife
title to the land. Whether or not tho
husbands interest is for life or in fee
simple to the property exchanged, ht
gives his wife such interest in the ex'
changed property as he receives. The
f doctrine that when property is charged
, with a trust on is exchanged for othel
, property the latter is held subject Il
. The trust, is not applicable where the
wife is the trustee If the husband
ithout showing that 1t was the In
: tention of the parties to retain TN
: trust relation. The doctrine Is tina
, the husband can give the wife prop
erty of which he Is the cestui que trust
/ as well as any other, aud, by having
r the deed made to her, vest In her IN.
. absolute title. Affirmed. Willie, q. J
i Scaef vs.. Thompkins, appeal from
' Collin county. The old and the lie
! vised Statutes upon the subject 40 no
2 conflict, and 1t was provided 10 the Oh