The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-19

The evidence was amply TO show that the
Injuries occurred from q combination ot
Me caures alleged and. WAS sufficient to
sustain the judgment To rule on liability
present see | Texas Law Review CO; 10
Texas, 346, 1856. Affirmed.
Texas 4 Pacific railway vs.. Burns; from
rarIant county. Opinion by Watts. ].
Adopted, When depobitions have been on
file for more than one entire day before
rial, objections TO tho form, or manner OF
taking came cannot be heard, unless mGde
10 writing, aud notice thereof given the op,
posite party, by filing II with the papers
and entering II on the motion docket Mo-
tons not relating 20 this merits must be
disposed Of before the tfiel commences.
Evidence Of tho pecuniary condition Of the
plaintiff In an action for damages 10 innd-
missible TO iucrepsa the damages, but, where
the mother Buea for damages for tho killing
OF her son, and u 10 shown that tho son
contributed TO her support. such evidence
Is admissible to show that such contribu.
ton would have continued had the ron
lived. Evidence that tho company
made repsirs at the point where the injury
occurred just after that time was inadmissi-
BIZ, 90 tending 10 chow admission OF pre-.
vious negligence. While the empoye az
sumes all risks incident to his employment,
yot the company 10 required 10 exercise
reasonable care In providing q cafe road
bed, suitable engine, cara, etc, and Is liable
Cor injuries resulting from defects which IL
knew, or might have known by ordinary
diligence. Gr0rs negligence, |. O., the want
Of slight Care aud diligence, not being
shown by the evidenoe in this case, a
Oh aree oil on exemplary damages was error.
The correct measure 81 damages In this
case was the probable amount deceased
would have contributed 10 eppellee's sup
port, had no no, been killed. In dstermin-
Ing this, the age and probable length OF
time the mother aud son might have lived
are admlssible. Reversed and remauded.
International &c Great Northern railroad
VS.. Nicholson; from Bexar county, opln.
ion by Willie, c. J. In order 70 show by
exiraneous evidence that tho value of the
subject matter 10 falsely estimated IN order
to give the court jurisdiction, the matter
must DO pleaded, and IL then becomes q
question to be determined by the jury.
The Jurisdiction OF the court 10 not crushed
by the mere fact that the party claimed
more and recovered less than the emount oil
the Jurisdiction. Where the airy found for
plaintiff the amount sued for IN view, on
the charge os 20 jurisdiction, such finding
Is held 10 have Included that the court had
jurisdiction. Tho general rule applied 20
common carriers rs that tns measure o.
damages Is the value Of the guOGs ~ the
place OF destination, lees the cost OF tgans.
portation. but where there u no
evidence Of any difference In value between
the place Of shipment and that OF destina.
ton, and the goods were second hand cloth.
ing what had no other value than that 20
the owner, this would furnish the measure
Of recovery. When the charge is no clearly
wrong, but not sufficiently explicit on q
given subject, Il il Tor the aggrieved party
to. ask proper instruction; 1t ~ only
where TIE freight money has been paid that
IL 20 10 be- 6'dnc'ed Ia striving Mt the
proper aluo. 1t OF rsu,very. Affirmed.
Name OF al. VS.. Britiop, from Greyson
county; opinion by Willie. c. j. Unless
void on its face an assignment should
be permitted TO go the jury. Where tho
assignment conveys all the, property OF
the arm making the assignment,
this Is sufficient description.
The deed OF assignment giving the nnmea
Of creditors Is not vitiatod because OF
simple failure TO state the nature and
smount OF their demand. Omissions in the
deed OF statement of the property or
creditors and their demands, must be
fraudulent to yltiate the deed where her such tsa
intent is not apparent on the tnoe
OF the deed, to effect vitlation
II must be clearly proven. When
the attachment in this case was levied, none
of the creditors had been paid asno property
had been cold, and CO the assignment passed
title 10 and vested u In the assignee. by
levying the attachment appellants bacsme
trespgssors and the onus was upon them to
show fight TO the property or no injury 10
creditors. Affirmed.
Marx vs.. Lange, Lowey & Co.; from Csld-
we'll county, Opinion by Delaney, J.
Adopted. Where tho court permitted
plaintiff 10 recall defendants witnesses
after they had been examined by defend
ant In rahuttel, and the testimony had
oI,-,1 f,r he p,trnnao NJ iouipU n mr.. dictate
for Impeachment. Held: In matters OF
thig character are 30 far committed to the
discretion Of the court that IN
the absence OF clear abuse, the
Judgment will not be disturbed.
Where the court charged that the clsim.
ants claim must be clear and abundant,
Held: Not reyersible error. 1t was error
TO Instruct the Jury that II appellant had
invested $500 OF her own separate money,
IL would be protected from her husbands
debts so long as IL WAS 40 Invested. Judg-
ment against the husband was unauthor'
lied IL already existed egainst him on the
debt, aud a second judgment would only
render HIM liable for the coste. Reversed
and remaDded.
Lee VS.. the State; from Callahan county.
Conviction for permitting gaming on his
premises. The only error assigned ana
noticed, relates 10 tho charge OF the court
on the question rs TO the deed TO the prem
isss, No objection was made 10 the deed
when IL was offered In evidence. IL WAS for
the court to construs the deeds and 10 de-
tormine their effect, and in doing so in this
case, no error appears. Affirmed.
Sherrnd VS.. The State from Brown county.
Conviction for an aggravated assault and
battery on one Wilson. AS no bills of ex-
ceptipns were taken 70 the pointa made in
the lower court and insisted on here, they
cannot he noticed, and for tho same reason,
Tho COURTS charge cannot be revised. No
error appearing, the judgment
Is affirmed.
Womack vs.. tina State, from Ereth coun-
~. Opinion by White, p. The general
rule relating 10 confessions 10, that to be
they shall have been voluntarily
made without hope or fear from any one.
The accused agreed 10 turn states evidence
agninst confederate and detailed matter
which criminatcd himself. He subsequent
" refused to testify against his coDfed-
crate and repudiated bis agreement with
the district attorney and denied tho state.
ments impaired to him. A witness was
permitted to testify to the statement made.
Held: The teat was whether the accused
WAS induced TO make the statement by
promise or hope OF immunity he'd out to
him by the State. II SO no bad faith will
qualify tho witness to detail the statements
before the jury. Had the statements been
the evidence Is insufficient
Reversed and remanded.
Love Vs. thu State: from Llsno county.
Opinion by White, p. ]. Where tina desired
evidences 10 shown to be material, yet when
diligence Is apparent tho motion
for continuance should not be granted. The
court correctly charged the jury In these
words 1.-THE intent to injure the owner (of
the horse) is the gist OF this offeuss. but
such intent may no presumed from the
killing" (Art. go P. o.. Jones vs.. State,
- O.: App; H. The evidences not being Of
port verdict Of guilty the Judgment is re-