The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-19
THE HERALD. MONDAY MORNLNe. May 10. lss4.

tho State (S3 Texas, 07) ~ no longer the law
Ia this state. Reversed and renanded.
Coulrnn w. the State; froni Collin coun-
ty. Opinion by White, y. J. Conviction
for libel. Held: Libel Is that class OF cases
wherein the indictment mus, set forth tue
language used IN haeo verbs. Ia Brown.
low vs.. State q Humphrey, CD, an indict.
ment similar 10 the ono IN QUESTION charged
that tho libel contained, AMONGST other
things, the following false. libellous and
malicious mstter and thiogs, according 10
the tenor following, that 10 10 cay: y was
there held this, this ayerrment processes
10 set forth tho substance and not tue
words OF the libel and. therefore, 10 not
VALID An Indictment for libel should
profess to set forth on Us face an accurate
copy NJ the alleged libel In words or hgnres,
and II II does no, II is insufficient. Thin
rule is the law In this state. Although the
writing In this case Was written and sent 10
the party receiving n, ard not Intended 10
be seen or read by apy one else, yet II con.
Btitutes libel for which prosecution VIII
BIO. The indictment being insuiticicnt the
judgment Is reveraed and the cause dis
missed.
Wrought Iron Bridge company ys. Book
rr; from Grayson county. Opinion by
Wilson l. Appellee levied ap execution
Of certain property rs the property Of q.
Bros, which was claimed by appellant az
the Wrought Iron Bridge comphny's. and
a trial Of the right OF property was had.
Appellant pleaded that the judgment was
against w. H., II. IL, and H. Il o., while
the property belonged TO rsll parties as
corporation known IS the Wrought Iron
Bridge company Held; The pies vas not
good on demurrer, II showing that the
property did belong to the defendants In
execution. The objections. TO the judg-
ment from Georgia, upon which Judgment
In this state was predlcatsd, failed 10 show
lin, the Georgia court did not acquire lu-
rlsdiction. Affirmed.
SUPREME COURT.
City National Bank W.. Strong; from
rurrant county. Opinion by Stayton. J.
Bills OF exceptions should show whether
the motion for CO ntiuuanco overfuled was
first or subsequent motion. Where the
mistake In the amount OF the draft was
made bv tho cashier OF the bank, and 1t
does no. appear that appellee had any
notice of the mistake when he handed
II back to the cashier with request that
he endorse 1t and direct it 10 O., and deposit
IL with the banks mail, however fraudulent
C.'s actions in receiving mora than he
knew was intended to be paid, yet the ap-
pellee cannot be held liable TO the bank for
any loss occasoned by i,s own mistake.
Who're the Judges refused, on motion, 10
make out the statement OF fscts found by
him, 1t must be made TO appear in some
manner before IL can bsreylsed. Affirmed.
Franks ct al. VS.. Chapman OF al; from
Atascoes county. Opinion by sisytOn ].
See this case on former appesl, Texas,
Law Review 49, Held: The county court
Is the proper tribunal in which TO contest
the validity OF en- instrnnenG admitted 20
probate d the will Of n deceased person,
save In the one respect given by the con-
stitution. the district court has no original
jurisdiction over such matters, Judgments
OF courta OF general jurisdiction are conclu'
siye OF the questions decided. when the jur-
isdiction of tho persons and subject matter
has been ccquired, unless the came be set
aside by some revlsory proceeding lowed
by law, but 10 does not follow that this re-
yisory power must be exercised
Ia some court exercising strictly
appellate Jurisdiction over the
clurt rendering judgment Ia tbs absence
o. constitutional prohibition she Legislature
has power to provide, et least in probate
cLuses, that court may revise It's own
Judgment in such way IS not to conflict
with constitutional restrictions. Ths leg.
islutnra intended 10 give persons interested
in suit d remedy by which they could
contest itB validity either for want Of the
requirements 10 do the the probate court
with necessary powers or for want OF the
essentials OF n will. PROBATE courts Of this
state have authority 10 revoke the probate
OF wills which they have probated. De-
cause dismissed. Under tho facts. upon
which this cause was sent to The district
court that court has now original probate |
Jurisdiction. Reversed and Terianded.
Bruner Bros. 70. Strong; from Lamar |
Opinion by Stnytop, |. Ii IL q
general rule that all evidence in regard to
between parties heinre re-
iuciBg au agreement to writing, which |
may have resulted In e written contract
clear in it's terms, Is inadmsibla for the |
purpose of giving another meaning than
that conveyed by the LANGUAGE used Ia the
writing. When fraud, accident or mistake
has prevented the use of language ind.
eating the true intent OF the parties, such |
intent may be shown. There Is no pre-
tense in this case that the contract does not
evidence the true situation of The parties,
but 4, Ia commended that the agreement was
not TO do tho operative unless appellant
gave appellee such information as
would enable him 10 buy and |
deliver cattle al price and expense 90 |
that he might rssli2e profit Of
81 per head over the price sppellante |
agreed 10 pay bin. Bot such is not the |
effect OF the contract IL this case. Appellee |
agreed 10 deliver the cattle absolutely, but |
on the face OF tho instrument IL appears that |
II he could not under the coutgHct price fret |
named, make certain profit, then he WAS
TO deliver the cattle atanother named price. |
The agreement prtcludinR the ide' OF rep |
reeer tetions by appellants intended or un.
dsrstood 10 he the foundation Of the Coz |
tract, the court erred ia overriding demur- |
rers which went 20 that part OF the answer
seeking 10 avoid liability on the ground OF
appellants failure to give the information
Reversed snd remanded.