The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-22

r defendant, though made under the il
1 fiuence of promises such as woulC
L render the same iuddmis sable III eVl
Y CtnCe, were corroborated by accompa
: nying statements made by the de
PENDANT, of eXtranneouS facts conduc
ing to establish his guilt, and fount
to be true, and were therefore brough
fully within the provisions of oul
, statute, and made competent evidence
against the defendant. We hold the
court did not err therefore in admit
ting the whole of the confession anC
statements of the defendant. Will
son, J.
DISTRICT COURT.
State VS.. G. J. Makemson; motion
for new trial overruled, and notice
OF appeal given.
State VS.. II. NJ. Bowen; motion for
new trial overruled and notice of ap-
pleal gwen.
Wheeless VS.. Wheeless; divorce
granted.
II. c. B. Hays VS.. Ed. Creary and
other plaintiffs; motion for new trial
oVerruled and notice of appeal given.
| }. NJ. Morphis VS.. John Stringer and
wife; motion to reinstate granted on
plaintiffs paying half of costs accrued
to date.
Thomas Nelson VS.. Thomas Wheel
| ct ct al: report of commissioners of
partition confirmed.
Ben F. Scalan, who was arrested
near Manchac, by 1T. o.. Bales, as
IN accomplice of G. T. Moore, of
Greer county. on April II, 1884, was
released on habeas corpus, proving
lot to be the right man, though re-
,embling him good deal in general
appearance.
SUPREME COURT.
In cases decided yesterday, judg-
ments were all affirmed as follows:
John g. Gibbons VS.. Ever ct al,
from Lamar county-Opin1on by
Judge Walker adopted.
Alb. and M. A. Willis VS.. E. and +.
Donac, from Llano county-Opinion
by Justice Stayton.
Meyer, Weis 81 Co. VS.. Oliver 81 |
Griggs, from Dimestone county,
opinion by Judge Watts adopted.
Lizzie Endick VS.. Charles Endick,
from Callahon county-Opinion by
Justice Stayton.
City of Dallas VS.. w. A. Jones
Opinion by Justice West.
Rufus Browder VS.. Mary E. Glenn
ems ct al, from Wise county-Opinion
by Justice Stayton.
The Endick case was an action for
diverse, based on averments of cruel
ty by the husband. There is no state
ment of the facts in the transcript,
and the errors assigned relate to the
exclusion of evidence offered and TO
supposed defects in the charge of the
court. The judgment Of the lower
court was for the defendent. The de-
sire of the husband, say the court, to
get possession of the child may, so far
as we may know without statement
of facts, have been laudable, and in
any respect justified.
The following case were dismissed
for want of prosecution:
Simpson VS.. Simpson; from Llano
county.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. VS..
Cave; from Nolan county.
Foote VS.. Tsrver; from Tom Green
county.
Austin & Northwestern Railway
Co. VS.. Trent, ct al; from Burnet
county.
The same road VS.. Overly, ct al;
from Burnett county.
In Mensing VS.. AXer Il Engelke,
moClon 1or rehearlng was submitted.
DISTRICT COURT.
In the case of Sanford Il Son VS..
Austin & Northwestern railway COM
pany, suit for cross ties and construc-
ton work, judgment was yesterday
rendered for plaintiff for $6,669.77.
Also judgment against John Peter
Smith of Fort Worth in favor of the
Thechiricahua mining and ore reduc-
ton company for 81 ,17043 on account
OF stock subscription.
In the case of Shipman VS.. Mrs.
suit for damages for alleged
unlawful disposition of the Shipman
boarding house, there was judgment
for Mrs. Shipman.
In the suit of John Hancock VS..
Theo. Hackenburg ct al, to quiet pos
session and title to lot 8 and 8 of lot
7 block 70, city property. judgment
was for plaintiff and for $50 damages
against defendants and for rent to
February % 1884