The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-08

LOT ue16nQanG.
DISTRICT COURT.
This court was principally engage
yesterday in the trial of Thomas v
Childers, charged with swindling ii
state. District Attorney Sheeks f,
the state and Messrs. Robert We
and George Walton attorneys for tn
accused. Childers was indicted
1877 for falsely procuring a reward {
$3.50 which Governor Hubbard ha
offered for the arrest of a man name
Wood Trammell to be delivered to tn
sheriff of Limestone county. The II
ward was ordered to be paid to Child
ers upon the strength of what pul
ported to be genuine certificate froI
Sheriff Tyers of Limestone county, a
follows:
SHERIFF's OFFICE,
Groesbeck, Texas, Sept. 2, 1877.
This is to certify that have thi
day received from Thomas NJ. Chi
derS the body of Wood Tramme
charged with murder, and the sal
Trammel is now confined in the coun
ty Jail of this county.
Given under my hand at Groesbeck
Limestone county, Texas, Septembe
2, 1877. J. B. TYERs,
Sheriff, Limestone county, Texas.
This, it was charged, was a forgery
and the result of the trial is the con
viction OF Childers, the jury fixing
the penalty at five years in the stat,
penitentjary.
The following cases were decided
yesterday
Emma D. Mahan VS. Aaron Coo i
from Williamson county. Affirmed
Opinion by Chief Justice Willie.
City water company VS. G. w
White, from Travis comfy. Affirm.
ed. Opinion by Associate Justice
Stayton.
international & Great Northern
railroad company VS. Charles Brett
jr., from Bexar county. Affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Stayton.
W. Fl: wainwright VS.. j. w. Hearne
tirmed. Opinion by Presiding Judge
walker, of the commissioners of ap-
peais adopted, except as to part of
the concluding paragraphs of it in
reference to the refusal of the judge
below to give the first special instruc-
ton asked by appellant, and except,
also, a small portion Of the opinion in
the same connection in reference to a
part OF the main charge Of the court.
"We have come to the con-
clusion," says Judge Willie,
as the organ of the court, after care
full examination of the entire record
that the first special instructions
asked was in substance at least suffi-
GENTLY embraced in the charge of the
court, that was given to the jury.
and thought that portion of the main
charge of the court commented on in
the opinion and held to be error, is not
entirely correct, and is as matter of
law justly subject to the criticism
made upon it in the opinion under con-
sideration, yet we believe that the er-
ror in that respect was not material
and that the justice of the case was
reached by the verdict and jud ment,
and that the error in the charge poin-
ted out in the opinion, is not of SO
grave a character, as to require on
that account alone, reversal of the
Judgment, and that the same result
would in all probability follow
on another trial of the case.
Under these circumstances there
fore we deem it proper and right
to affirm the judgement, and it is ac-
cordingly ordered that the judgement
of the district court b, in all things af-
firmed.
Houston & Texas Central railway
company vs. Ida May Kinney, from
Grayson county. Affirmed. Opinion
by Associate Justice West.
Houston & Texas Central railway
company VS.. Eli r. Kinney, from
Grayson county. Affirmed. Opinion
by Judge West.
Texas & Pacific railway company
VS.. A. S. Nicholson ct al, from Tarrant
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge
Willie.
In the Ada Kinney case there was
verdict and judgement against the
railroad company for 81, $50 and costs;
she being a minor and the suit haV-
ing been brought for her use by her
father, Eli r. Kinney, who also sued
the company and got verdict and
judgement for damages for injuries to
Ida Kinney $702, and for death of
Nance Kinney $702 to lie divided as
follows:
To Eli Kinney, the father, 1851; to
Caroline Kinney, mother, 1851; for
the support Of Ada Kinney, $1750;
amounting in all to s., 154 and costs.
The questions at issue were as to
the facts. There was conflict of ev-
idence as to the rate Of speed of appel
lant's train at the time the injury was
received. The jury by their verdict
found that appellant was guilty of
negligence in running the train at a
much greater rate of speed than was
safe or necessary in entering the de.
pot yard at Denison. The jury, say
the court. were authorized from the
record so to conclude. The verdict
then is not only not contrary to, but
is supported and justified by the evi.
dence. The record contains no bills OF
exception to the admission or eXclu
sion of testimony. There is no com
plant as to the charge of the court
or its actions in giving or refusing in
structions.
In the Brett case the brief for ap.
pellants states that Brett sued the
company for damages aggregating
$4,000, resulting from injuries sus
tanned by defendants engine and traiI
colliding with plaintiffs wagon and
team while crossing the railroad in the
suburbs of San Antonio. Of thu
amount Sl8,73O was claimed for per
sonal injuries, and 81 ,27O for incident
al damages resulting therefrom, ant
to property specified in the petition
The citation in attempting Il
describe the nature of plaintiffs de
mand, used the words "Suit fol
damages" Motion was filed to quasi
the citation because it did not stat,
the nature of the plaintiffs demand
and was not accompanied with cop.
of the petition filed. Defendant fle(
general and special demurrer ant
answer, and subsequently anothe
motion to quash the citation, etc. Tn
jury gave verdict for plaintiff for on
thousand dollars actual damages, ant
eight thousand dollars damages TO
personal injuries. New trial wa
oVerruled and appeal taken on th1I
teen assignments of error.
The court holds that as to the me
ton to quash it is unnecessary to COL
slider any question raised as to tn
suficiency or service of the citation
for if the motion was correctly ovel
ruled no damage really resulted
the appellant by the ruling; and if til
ruling in either respect was erroneou
it must be held unimportant. Thel
is no conflict in the evidence as to tt
exercise of care by the appellee, an
the jury were justified in their I'm
ing of gross negligence as to the a.
pellant. The jury were judges as |
the amount of damages, and while Il
verdict seems large, there Is nothir
in the records which would authors
\ -