The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-01

WIS In writing or merely verbal
Wilson, j.
In Mulkey 81 Russell, VS.. the state
from Collin county, the appt al is from
a conviction for alleged violation Of
the local option law. The voters OF
the precinct, having since the convic
tlan, declared against prohibition
Judgment is reversed and the prosecu
ton dismissed, because there is nc
longer any law by authority of which
the Judgment could be enforced
Wilson, j. Cases referred TO, Frieze
" Jones VS.. state, and Prather VS.
state, Nth Texas Court of Appeals
reports.
In Fort Worth 81 Denver City
hallway company VS.. Y. b. Brown
SUIT for damages Ior killing and in
Jurlng stock, there was Judgment for
$22O. The appeal, appearing to be for
delay damages for frlvoulous appeal
are awarded against the company.
COMMISSIONERS OF APPEALS.
In the case of VIM. Thompson VS..
Edna A. Evans, ct. al, from Fannln
county; referred by consent to this
court, decree wasI rendered yesterday
affirming the Judgment of the lower
court. Opinion by Judge Watts.
In Patillo, ct. al, VS.. VIM. Thomp-
son. from Fannin county; also consent
case. Judgement of the lower court
IS renewed and cause remanded.
Watts judge.
In the Evans case the suit was by
ordinary form OF action of treSpaSs to
recover possession of the western por-
ton of the Chas. Cantrell survey;
there was general denial and plea not
guilty; also pleaa of the three years
limitation and one years posse ssion
and improvements in good faith.
The verdict was rendered fol- plaintiff
and Judgment given accordingly for
all the land in controversy except as
much of the Charles Cantrill survey
as was sold by Antony Brown to D.
j. Patillo by bond dated December 20,
1861 ,and that app llaut below was not
posse SSOr in good faith. The con-
troversy is over the true location of
the Charles Cantrill survey made in
1S47.
In the Patillo case, appellants as
plaintiffs below sought by similar ac-
ton to recover the same portion of
the CantrllI survey. Thompson Plead
ed not guilty, and specially title under
patent to himself March 6, 1878, and
Improvements in good faith. The
court, without trial by jury, gave
Judgment for defendant. The contro-
versy, as in the previous case, involves
the true location of the Cantrill sur
vey relative to that Of the John Weeks
grant.
The case as presented, says Judge
Watts, seems to amount upon the
part of the appellee to an attempt to
appropriate portion of an old sur
Yey that might be considered as eX-
cess. The finding of the court being
against the great prepOnderance of
the evidence, the judgment is reversed
and the cause remanded.
City of Austin, garnishee, VS.. n. T.
Erwin, from Travis county; award by
consent; judgment affirmed.
In this case, Erwin having judg
ment against A. Tiedman for $500,
garlIlsneed he city as being indebted,
it was alleged To 1i,dulan. The 81 y
denied owing Tiedman, which denial
was controverted under oath. There
was judgment against appellant, de-
PENDANT below, for $24847, from which
judgment appellant appealed by GER
tiorari to the county court OF Travis
county, which, at its March term, 1853.
quashed affidavit made by attorney on
behalf of Erwin for garnishment, and
dismissed the case, from which judg
ment Erwin appealed, and which judg-
ment the court of appeals reversed at
the Austin term, 1881, and remanded
the case for trial. The county court.
notwithstanding Judgment in the
case for a less sum than the judgment
in the Justices court, from which tn
cause was appealed, awarded plaintiff
costs of county as well as Justices
court, and CAV il !,cment according
". Motions for new trial and for
reform of judgment were overruled.
Held: "The process of garnishment is
an auxiliary writ in the nature of an
execution to aid in securing the fruits
of judgment, and the Justices court
in this instance was not deprived of
the power to have the judgment exc
cuted, because the interest on the
claim, which enters into a judgment
rightfully rendered. made the claim
amount over $500, that being the
amount of the Justices jurisdiction.
j. w. TUFTS VS.. w. i. Blanton ct al,
from Cooke county. Award by con-
sent. Reversed and remanded. Opin-
ion by Judge Delany. Suit on notes
given for a soda fountain and fixtures
,old by plaintiff, upon which lien eX-
listed. Held that the plaintiff below
was entitled to recovery as against
the assignee who can claim no higher
rights in the property than the orlgl-
nal Vendees. He would however take
the property subject to the lien OF the
mortgage. But as the mortgage EN- :
braced other property besides that in
controversy, equity would require that
the mortgage should exhaust that be-
fore proceeding gainst the property OF
the plaintiff.
Opinions were given in the follow
ing additional cases
Samuel Schultz ct. al. VS.. w. L..
Lampert, administrator, from Ell Paso
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge
Watts.
}. M. Poe, ct. al. VS.. Headley Polk,
from San Saba county. Reversed and
remanded. Watts j.
John Frazier, w. Woodwold,
Squires & Co, from Coryell county.
Reversed and remanded. Watts j.
f. r. Chase, VS.. S. l. Rowan, from
Hill county. Affirmed. Oplon by
presiding Judge Walker.
S. r. Jeffrey, VS.. q. A. Graham,
from Young county. Affirmed.
Walker p.
T. V. Dansiels. VS.. Western Union
Telegraph Co., Grayson county. AT
firmed. Walker P.J.
w. III. Wamright, VS.. j. w. Hearne,
ct. al, from Grayson county. Re
versed and remanded. Walker L. j.
T. A. and p. Fay, VS.. Queen In
surance Co., from Grayson county.
Appeal dismissed. Opinion by Judge
Delaney.
ii. 81 Il. G. R'y. Co. VS.. Frank Con-
rad, from Limestone county. Judg-
ment affirmed. Delaney j.
DISTRICT COURT.
In this court yesterday judgment
was given against w. II. Edwards
and surities on his official bond as tax
collector of Limestone county for
1866 and 8 per cent interest from Sep
fember 1 '84. A draft for which
comptroller's receipt was executed was
ruled out as it did not appear to have
been paid into the state treasury.
Ex-Gov. Hubbard is expected i'll the
citv on Thursday as witness in a
case in the district court IN which a par
is charged with falsely personating
an officer and collecting a reward du-
ring Gov. Hubbards administration.
COUNTY COURT.
In the case of John Orkney ct. al.
VS. Turner 81 Newning, claiming bal
ance on land transaction, judgment was
x,yan uocfardav in favor of defal-