Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-06
,,on.ton. East and West Texas Rail-

81
..,ining the amount of damage to con
sidar the difference In rental value o
,ho nroperty In question before ant
~ vno ftbe wrongful act of the defend
ant in error, it is apparent from tn
record that the jury was, not lLIl'
anced by such erroneous charge. Ih'
netitiou did not set out very clearly nj
! The matters aud elements OF damage
several allegations, however, sho"
| INT defendant in error claimed dam
,ges resulting from the wrongful acts
"f nlaintiff in error. The plaintiff in
error filed only general demurrer
and afterwards abandoned that. No
obieotion was taken on the trial to any
evidence. Under such circumstances
The verdict showing special grounds
mon which the jury based their find
Inv. the Judgment will not be dis
uTbed. Affirmed. West, j.
Galveston Harrisburg u San An
tonic R'y VS.. Bell, from Harris coun-
tv.-Ibe assignments Of error brought
m in the record are such as can only
he revised In connection with Il state
mept of facts, of which the record is
destitute. a statement of facts UNI
signed and unapproved by the court,
though signed by counsel, cannot be
considered by this court for any pur-
pose. The judgment disclosts no fun
damental error and il is affirmed.
Stayton, j. -
Ayers W.. Sharkey, from Washing
ton county.-The property involved in
this litigation was acquired by the mp
pellees as their HON stead in 1870, aud
It was occupied as such until some
time in 1876 IL consisted of part of
a lot fronting sixty feet on one street
and ninety feet on another. In 1876
the appellee contracted for the erection
of three store houses on the lots, and
the houses we.e erected late in that
year But prior to such completion
the dwelling house of the. appellees
was removed and the shade trees cut
down. Appellees resided for u short
time in rented house in town, and
fora short time with the wife's relatives
in the country. Upon this state of
facts appellants contend that n home
stead is determined by the character
Of the use of the property; that the use
of the premises for the support of the
family does not impart to it the
character of homestead; that
The husband and wife may control the
by devotiug part OF it to
other Uses without parting absolutely
with title. Held, that while these
Of law are well taken, it
2 essential that the evidence show be-
,ond shadow of doubt that abandon
nent was complete. The charge of
he court instructed the jury that when
property once becomes the homestead,
10 long rs il so remains the husband
cannot by building houses thereon so
o separate portion of it us To subject
[ to forced sale, as that would he doing
indirectly what he could not do di-
ectly." Held, error, inasmuch as the |
harge was not applicable to the facts. |
The rule is that if the head of the fam
ly, with the consent of the wife given |
II any manner prescribed by law, per-
devotes part of the home
tegd to other purposes than n home |
tead, such part so appropri ited loses
Is exemption. Reversed and re- |
Perry ct al. vs.. Woodson, from Har-
is county.-That the vendor has an
quitabe lien on the land conveyed
~ VIZ b.AisAiiNN vi pun NIlaEt - J.
principle of Law too well settled for 4.
ispute. Such lien arises by OPP
ration of law and cannot
e avoided without special waiver.
here is not, in this case, any evidence
ending to show that the appellee ever
aid the balance ofthe purchase money
n the land conveyed. Hence, in the
bsence of such waiver, the land was
urdened with the unpaid balance.
he note, which was the basis of tins
elton, was given to Woodson, for the
urchase of II 2GO acre tract of land con
eyed by ID. to Mrs. Woudson, and the
npaid balance due Mrs. Perry is
art of the consideration due by Wood
On on his original purchase, and is az
nectual against the land, as if il had
cen executed direct t. Mrs. Perry.
lrs. WoodsOn could not claim the
roperty as her sepa rate property
against the purchase money, In
hese respects the privileges of a mar
ed woman do not differ from those OF
Their persons The judgment is re-
ersed and here rendered i'm favor of
'avis and wife, that appellants recov-
OF appellee and wife the amount
ne on the note and costs of suit, and
lat the lien on debt. Ordered accord
lgly.
Young ys. Young, from Bell county.
his suit was brought by the wife
Sainst the husband for divorce, The
round allie .ed being incest with APP
daughter, of which in pre-
ious criminal trial, he had been con
icted. The defendant pleaded that
eiore the amended petition had been
ied In the case, his punishment had
zen committed by the governor,
men Communication operated az n par
On and hence could not be now held
ground for divorce. But held, that
le legal consequences of commuta-
oh by the governor, of conviction
,cured against the husband, upon
Dher testimony than that of the wife,
'hiiot operate as "A pardon so far as it
'lstes to the law of divorce. Reversed
nd remanded,
Easterwood VS.. Newly, from John
III Observation-Disclosures the fact
iat this case was heretofore referred to
,e commission of appeals, and that
ley mad reported upon the same, an
signed by the parties in in
rest 10 the effect that an agreed iudg
i ie, may be entered, the motion is
stained ana Judgment will be enter
= accoralngly. So ordered.
o"ilth VS.. uzzell-From Montgom-
~ county. The case is stated on
, nn appeal, So Texas, 3i5. Add
onai evidence introduced on this trial
bnos 10 disclose that the removal of
ntan ppe'iee and his family was not {
omas eu Us an abandonment of the {
yar es ,t Upon this point, how
No ;, uneie was a conflict of evidence
lrv JsHuge trying the case without a