The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-07-01

-,s laDOf III ms own proper
IS .tilling his contract, did not
IS = him labOrer in behalf of the /
Ire ii under the employment. or ut the
tance of said railroad or of a con-
actor, or Sub-contractoro or agent of said |
company. The performance of the man |
\ lal laborcr required in that behalf, by |
hnself in person, did not alter
lis relation to the subject; he !
was sub-contactor and his |
right and remedies and the co-rclatvc |
liabilities of the railroad company to him |
were determined by the relation, and |
not by the modes which he might adopt
to carry out his contract with the princ- |
pal character. Therefore. not being a
lahorer in the sense contemplated by
Sec. !, Act Feb. IS, 1879 CRcv. Stats.
App, p. i) and not entitled to the lien
therein given. Reversed and rendered
by pretcrmitting any decree for the en-
forcemcnt Of the lien Reversed and
rendered.
Austin & Northwestern railway vs.
Daniels; from Williamson county. Opin-
ion by Walker, p. j. This actionis based,
so far as appellant is concerned,
upon the Act Of Feb. Is, 1879, (AppendiN
Rev. Stats p. y which statute clearly
creates, by its express terms, such
privity between "mechancs, labor
crs and operatives" and the railroad for
whose benefit the labor contemplated by
the act is performed, rs entities the for
lucr to maintain an action directly
against such railroad to enforce the lien
given therein. Where the petition shows
that the work was performed by labor
crs employed by sub-cOntractOr to per
form tho work; the labor of making
crOss-ties at "a specified price per tie, or
Tor the reasonable value, 10 be paid by
.Vue contractor, the plaintiffs are entitled
20 their statutory lien. The lien given
by the statute to such laborer, or
lahorcrs, is assignable and passes
with the assignment OF the account,
(kllcn Il Humphreys W.. Texas and St.
louis railway, | Texas Law Review, u;
Railway company w. McNlullcn, w. and
W. Con. Rep. page 60. Whence the
items Of an account set forth and verified
by affidavit are for CroSS-tiCS furnished,
held not to bc AN open account within
the meaning of Art. 22di, Revised sta
tutos. (McCamaut vs.. Batscll, Texas
Law Review, S37; Railway company vs.
Smith, > Texas Law Review 36G; Murray
vs.. McCarty, 3 Texas Law Review vi
and rs sue verified account was all the
evidence adduccd, the judgment is moi
supported by the evidence. Reversed
and rcmandcd.
COURT OF APPEALS,
Mcdaniel w. the State; from Braaorij
county. Appellant was convicted ofth,
murder of, Bob Matthews, in August
lSS2, and his punishment assessed at
life term in the peuitCntiIry. The i'm
dictmCnt Is good, Defendant did no
exhaust his challenges 20 jurors, Tn
charge Of the court is correct, The oh
jections TO the remarks of the Distric
Attorney and to his reading the law 4
the Jury, are not well taken, The mo
ton for new trial was properly over
ruled. The affidavit of the juror, Black
was entitled TO no consideration. tn
evidence is sufficient. Affirmed,
EX partc Walter Miles; from }astro
county. This is I'm appeal from a iud-
mcnt Ofthe court below on q hNheaS col
pus trial refusing defendant bail. lie wa
charged with the murder of one TaylC
in Bustrop county, April 6, lNS
This court following its prev
Gus rulings, holds that the cv
dcnco is sufficient To sustain
conviction for murder of the first IT.
gree, and without commenting Thereof
hold the Judgment of the court hclo
sufficiently sustained by the cyidcnc
aud 1t is affirmed.
Tx partc Robert Miles, from Bastr,
county, Appellant brings up this u
peal from Judgment Of the court h
low granting him bail In the sum
$1,000. lie was charged with killing
negro at a dance mt Elgin The proof
held tu he sufficient to sustain &
courts Judgment, and the amount
bail is held 10 be reasonable under
proof, and the Judgment is affirmed.
Jesse and lord Duncan vs., the sta
from Hood county appeal from u 60
vctiOn for the THEFT of n hog. As the
Is no rccogniZance I'm the record rs
Jesse Duncan, and no fact showing IN
10 he In Jail, the appeal rs TO him is Il
missed. As to the other appellant, ht
not entitled to the statements of NJ
duncan. They were not statements
S.londant, were hcarsay, and IL desii
"a. Duncan should have been put
the stand TO testify rs to them.
trmcd.
Hcnncr vs. the state, from Wilhari
county. This is an appeal from 4 iu,
mcnt of conviction for unlawmllN e.
Wing pistol, for which Il fine of $50 v
assessed. From this Judgment he
peals. Held; As the Judgment of
County court Is for hut $50, such iul
ment Is final and no appeal viii II,
4 this court. Appeal dismissed.
Gulf, Colorado Il Santa Fc Railway
III Styron; from johnson county. on
hearing. This cause camc on To be he
Nj up,n the motion of the appellee for q
hearing, and the sUmC hoing considr
MI and IL appearing 'n the court that u
III nrp not satisfied of the entire cOrrcVtt
of their former decision, IL Is urdC
that rehCaring be- granted and that
cause ho transferred TO the bll\pN
branch of this court for their briefs
information on the decisive question
Messing vs.. ANpr ~ Eugplkc; fl
H. Warrington county. ON rchparing
inmer day of this term this cause
|, reversed and romandpd upon the p
that MS the statute docs not uutho
The answer to writ of garnshmcn
H. bpHnswercd by an agent or attorney
III such was done Ia this ease, that
III copions To- such answer should !
III Aan sustained. The motion is basc
H. Il ~ alleged error of the court In So h
H.. ! mg. but upon again considering
oupstiun. the court still adhcrcs On
6rmcr ruling aud reverse, the eau
Hanrick w. iIgnrick; from /
epuntv. ON rchrarIng This ease
reversed and rcmpuded by this con
affmnr dav of this toru upon On
poH of the Commissioners OF App
W. .ha, court following the ruling ne
~ fore laid down In this same ease