Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-02
THE HIGH COURTS.
Syllabus OF Opinions Rendered at the
Galveston Term, 1854.

Thomas vs.. the State, from Bel
cou y.-Convic,ion for theft from the
person ofan over-c0at and several hand
kerchie fs. What purports TO be a
statements of facts canno. be so consid.
cred rs il was never filed In the court
below. The charges of the court not
being excepted to, nor made ground
of the motion for new trial, cannot be
noticed now as there Is no fundament-
al error therein. Affirmed. -
Hunt VS.. the State, from Washing
ton county.-While the charge OF the
court on self-defense failed 10 instruct
the jury as to the reasonable appre-
hension by defendant that his wife
was in danger of her life or serious
bodily harm ut the hands OF the de-
ceased, yet as the error was not except
ed To al the time, nor made a ground
of the motion fora new trial and not
being fundamental error cannot now
be noticed. Affirmed.
Conn W. Salinas, from Webb coun-
ty. Opinion by Hurt. J.-Where A
sued b for balance due for the rent
ola certain building, and b answered
under oath admitting part of the ac-
count for rent but pleaded an offset of
an itemized account for goods, wares
and merchandise sold and delivered
and the court admitted evidence To
disprove this account without an atil-
davit denying its business, held error.
AS BIS petition states that
plaintiff being ct various
times DESTROYS of obtaining from de-
PENDANT divers sums of money and
amounts of goods, wares and mer-
chandise, did not demand payment of
said rents and advances, but allowed
said account for rents and sums of
money, value of goods, wares and mer-
chandise to continue as an open
account, etc. 1t comes within the
meaning of the word account used in
Art. 1906 Revised Statutes. Reversed
and remanded.
Brown VS.. Engle, from Fayette
county. Opinion by Hurt, judge. Suit |
for rent In which the landlord sued out |
q distress warrant aud had 1t levied
upon certain cotton. The testimony
showed that he did not rent the prem
ises to defendant, but sold it to him for
800. He never demanded rent, but
"interest on his money" that he took
the place back from Brown because he
could not pay for 1t; that they had
settlement in which II was agreed that
Brown should be released from his
and that Engle should have
/ 400 pounds OF cotton belonging to
Brown; but upon hearing that Brown
was shipping of his cotton, this suit
was brought, Held, the evidence does
not support the verdict, and the judg-
nent Is reversed and remanded.
Leal VS.. Wo0dhouse, from Webb
Opinion by Wilson judge
nasao Af emit Ittpn "a nrnnttsapru
note where the defendant resides oit
IF the state, and the service Is had out
IF the state and judgment 10y default Is
AIKEN, the defendant not appearing, 1t
must appear that the notice and the
lervice thereof have been made In
'trict compliance with the require
nents of the statute, not only rs TO
matters Of substance, but also of form.
Where the petition states that notice
was filed July 81 1888, when In fact
laid petition was ii led July "a 1883;
md it further appears that the notice
8 not attested by the seal OF the court;
leld, the notice does not support the
Judgment By default. Reversed and
special to the Gazette.
SUPREME COURT.
Galveston, February 1.-The SUI
oreme court atiirmed-Conway vs.. !
,ity of Beaumont, from Jefferson; Da-
'is VS.. Smith, from Trinity; Jones ct
Al vs. Barton ct al, from Hamilton.
Reversed and rendered for appellant
-WooteIs VS.. Hall, from Houston.
Reversed and reInanded-Heaid VS..
Bushby. from Tyler; Edwards vs..
Connally ct al, from Burleson; Evan
sick VS.. g. q. 4 S. +. railway, from
Clack vs.. Gntfee, from
Falls.
Submit ed--Petty VS.. Hallinger,
from Houston; Frlsby vs.. Wlthers,
from Trinity; Seeligson q Co. VS..
Browns Brown, from Grimes.