The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-30
THE COURTS.
Suits for Damages for Unreasonable
Delsy-Advauces on Cotton.
Homesteads - Where the Burden Of
Proof Rests,
Aud Miscellaneous Court Decisions
coURr or ArPRALs.

In evidence nm exhibit containing the cotton
press receipt for the cotton before IL was
shipped, which receipt showed the marks,
weight, e,c.. OF the cotton. They also took
excsp ion 10 the action OF The court In tx
sluding tho answer OF witne. to prove
that he was the owner OF tho cotton, and
that appellee was only banker having .
lien thereon for money advanced, although
the bill OF lading showed him To he tho
owner Held There Ia no error In the
Judgment of the court aud IL In affirmed.
Mcdonald vs. the s'ato, from Madison
county. Motion TO dismiss the appeal be
cause this court has no jufisdiction OF the
cause, in that there IL no iiual judgment In
The record Held: Upon an inspection OF
the record, L. appearing therefrom that sea.
tence was not pronounced before tho appeal
was taken. ~ required by Art. 7Oi, q. q. r.,
the motion is grated aud the appeal dis
missed.
B,rbosa va. the state. from Webb county
Conviction tor assault with intent 10 mur-
der. The evidence clearly showed me as
sault Ms charged in the INDICTMENT. The in
dictment wrs good and sufficient and PROF.
erly charged the oflsnse TO have been COM
mitted ia Eacinal county The ciu'ts
charge was IN oil respects sufficient aud
therefore there vas no error in the courts
refusing the special charge to the ELECT that
10 convict tor assault with intent 20 murder
the Jury must iiod that the assault was com
mitied with malice nforethoagh.. Al
Hrmed.
Woodhouse vs.. Trsyino, from Cameron
county. Suit was brought by Fsurstlng
mariner against one L9sl aud a writ oi gao
nishmeDt sued out against appellee. APPEL
lee duly fled bis sworn plea DENYING u.dsr
his oain any Indebtedness TO Lsal This
sworn answer was ui,laid by the clerk At
81 - "A ,
fled by appe lee rendered judgment by de-
fault against him. About five days after
the rendition OF the Judgment b. dsault
the answer OF appellee was found, and the
count of It's own motion set aside the Judg-
ment by default and an answer by appellant
coutroverting appellee's sworn answer bsing
flied. the trial was bad and judgment rem
dered for appellee. Held: There Was no or
ror. Affirmed.
Baumbuck vs.. II. G.. Cook, agent. from
FaYette cou.ty. Obinion by Hurt. ]. Ap.
mel ee and appellant and G orge Baumbsek
In iustice's court Tor damages, and recoy-
cred ,ainst appellant Tor specified amount
but recovered nothing from George Baum
back. In appes.ing TO the county court sp-
psIlant gave an appeal bond with hts troth.
err George and one other rs sutsties. GA
motion the appeal was dismissed tor want OF
an insufficient bond. Held: Error Asap'
pcllee did not sppra from the Judgment re-
leasing George Bsumb.ck, tue latter was
no longer parry 10 the .uit and was o>n-
petent surety on his Drothefs appear pond
Reversed and -emauded.
John Ruston vs. the state, from Dewitt
county Opinion by Wilson. by an or
der of court, estersd of record ntti r the con-
yiction OF defendant, aud upon his no ics OF
appeal TO this court. ths psrt'es wer. oil.
lowed ten days from the acJ 'urnment OF
the court to make Mp. sign aid fife in tns
If La h.fR
the time thus |. lilo we'd had expired counsel
for defe ndant pre- ssnted 10 the county attor.
nov n statement Of facts made M by thsA,
for the action OF said county attorney, blu
he declined TO sign the same or To take any
Nctioa In relation tntrsto. or to aid In any
manner in making no sta's ment OF facts
Defendants counsel, on the same day pre-
septed their statement to the county judge,
who had tried the csse, and no likewise dc.
clined to act upon the same. and declined
20 make up aud certify any statement OF
facts, and the record is before us without
any statement OF facts, with the forseot &
statement accounting Tor its absence. Ii
appears from This sia'tm mt that tho dc
fsr daut, wi hout.any fault or neglect on his
par' or the part OF his counsel has been de
nrived o. mot important legal right. and
such being th- case. thu ludgment VIII DO
reversed and renlsnj.d; (Efsmuell 70. the
state, 7Ct App l2i; Lensiv W. the y ate, .
CT. ADJ, oil, BhDD vs. tu"s ave, o VI. app
1871. kevrf sod and remauded.
Andrew Ru-ton ". The state, IRON, Nadi
ma CO inty. OPINION by Wilson, l Toe
eylurpce IL no, oil tina. sttisfac or, vIdspt
and conclusive curi acisr 10 suthorz" the
denia! OF bail: (lO Tex, 100, 40 Tex $40; |
O.. App 1877; Bul OF Rlgnt., Sec III =
The record dos not furnish sufrcient evil
dence Us tho capsc'ty ~ hbilI oi de-
PENDANT to pivs bail. How YER IL shows
that he is u poor man Ia cases OF thls
churac, er the record should always furnish
this court with Information as 10 tbe necurl'
arv circum -tsUc-s of the accused; az Yer, j,
800. 8 CT. App, 65s). Applicant admitted
10 $500 bail
Frank smith, VS. the state, from Wash.
ington conn,,. Opinion by Hurt, J. Ill
at The time OF he killing, tho conduc, Vi
the deceased viewed in the light OF all the
circumstances was such as to create in the
mind OF the nefeadant u r 'asonab'e appre-
hels.oa OF dta Ia, or serious bodily injury
the defendant would have the right 10 Kill
whether the danger was real or apparent
The conduc of INA deceased was SUCH ~
was reaenuabiy calculated TO create IN tho
mind OF the dsteudAnt ,he required nppre-
htnsion. 2-By the fourth subdlvi-i IA or
article 507 q. g. p, Insulting words or
conduct of the person killed toward IL
male relative of tns homicide Is III ide an 81
eouste cause tn reduce murder 90 hom'eiis.
this subject. But hs the ON ssion Was not
excepted so as the time, aud no special
charge asked. nor made "A ground Tor new
trial. il CT uot now ne - ado "A ground TOR
reversal. Reversed and remsnded
suPaRMs CURT
Carothers vs. Williams 4 o., FROM Bur
nett comfy. Opinion by Waits, ]. ADOPT.
cd. At an early per cd In the Iu,icis' MS
tory oil this .tass l. WAS decide, that where
upon the face Of the paper, sill the parties
sppes. To pe pii icipsl OBJ igois the stata q
which prohibits di.c .plin uance NJ To III.
pripcipal, unless dead, irsslvent, or beyond
the Jurisdictions OF the court dies not apply
But That such provision OF the statute has
application only whom she pSrty had dsined
his position ~ sarsty, etc iu and by Aba
t.vms ~ tho instrument which he has cx--
.nted. 4. Texas $40: G Texse, 81; o rsxas
IDS: % rexas, ASS; 20 rox.s. SOY Ba, mis-
rule mas been cn.Egeo By Subsequent leki'-
lariop, tart go, Rsv stats, also Arts
IaJ7-i2OS. Rev. Stst.). Appeiicss ans@,f
did not assert Auy deieac To appellants &C
tiou. and the csurs should have sust.iLed
the excel ton 10 tbs sans. reversed aro
Newman w. Fsrquhar from Washington
county. Opiniou by West, J. Ths msin IL.
sue in the cas- = bsisg whether the homes e.u
of appellee asd har husband was III Waeh
ipgton or Waller county. on the da's OF w.
deed OF appslles . husband to apUs lsnt ,h-
court rrectly charged the jury 10 ere
that the deed '. 81 81 title In appellant ubiss'
at the time The land was homestead; tn>'
the burden o. proof wssOn Appellee 70 show
Homestead right ct the ds,s OF the desc
that II the lAbd was not the Homestead ups
was vested in appellant that the home
stead OF the fssiiiy was the usuAl aud nsoit
usl place OF rssicsncs Of the husband sno
wife. The court correctly excluded ans wsr'
of Smith to interrogatoriest 10 him, the tint
the declarations stssm pied to be proved mol
being sufficiently shown, nor tss cream
stances uoder vnicn they vsre mede, mel
tnat appellee vsr present. Uodss the fsc',
of thi, case, Tho nusbs sd's dscisfs,ios COMO
not be allo we'd AZ vrsjucics his vice rigns