The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-25


county. it was alleged and shown that
such railroad was operated and leased
NV the Missouri Pacific railroad
aud notice with ac-
interrogstOries PROFOUND
to certain witnesses was served on the
local agent of the Missouri Pacific rail-
road company at Ty.er,in Smith county;
another copy served on on in the offices
OF such mpanieS nj Palestine, teld TO
he good service. Where it il alleged by
defendant that the accident was one of
the results of that class of accidents
springing from natural causes, against
which no human foresight could guard;
that the broken rail causing the accident
was, before that time, sound and ser
viceable, and the sudden fracture in it
was caused by the supreme degree Of
cold to which it was subjected aud not
from any negligence of defendant, and
plaintiff contends that the accident WAS
caused by the culpable acts of defend
ant in running the train at too high
rate of speed over an old and
much-worn track, causing the rail to
break, evidence of the bad condition of
the road aud track ut and near the pl ce
of he accident, is admissible. Where
witness WAS detailing the high rate of
speed at which the train was running,
and ton the purpose of making his mean
ing more clear to the jury, stated an eN-
clamation of a fellow passenger as to
the short time consumed in running be-
tween certain stations. Held: Admissi-
bic. Affirmed.
Nenny ct nj. VS.. Schluter II Co.; from
Marion county. Opinion by Willie, e. i.
subsequent attaching creditor can ill.,
tervene in a suit wherein q junior at
tachment has been issued and levied,
for the purpose of protecting his inter
ests in the property seized under both
attachments. This right to intervene
can be exercised only for certain
purposes and under proper state OF
facts which must be set forth in the in
tervenor's petition. Where the aver
ments in the petition as to fraud are tina.
the FIRST attaching creditors debt was
placed at Sj00 more than WAS justly due
upon 10; that the $500 was secured along
with other debts in deed OF trust upon
Il portion of the same properly levied
on under the attachment; that the prop
erty mentioned in the decd was more
than Sulli ient TO pay all debts secured
by il, a that before bringing the suit
the interNenOrs had been led to believe
from statements of tue plaintiffs that
800 being cured by the deed would be
Deduct a from the claim sued on; that
tue property mentioned in the deed had
been sold during the pendency of the
suit and brought less by reason of the
deed of trust being on record Mt the
time, and the impression thereby
created that the deed secured the said
1900, in addition to the other sums spec
flied in it, thus rendering the equity 1T
redemption less valuable to hat eXlont
thar on q. and the first attaching cred
ors, to prevent competition at the sale OF
The property, bv which b. was enabled
to buy it for $500 less than il other
wise would have brought, and n
sum previously agreed on between him
self and said creditors colluded together
aud also plaintiffs and defendants,
whereby the latter's answer was with.
irawn so as TO facilitate judgment for
the former for the full amount claimed.
Held: The bill Of Intervention shows no
prejudice To the interests of the inter
veuOrs in the attached property arising
rom the alleged fraudulent conduct OF
the otucr parties to the suit, and were
not authorized to intervene for the pro-
lection Of such interests, hence, de-
murrer was properly sustained. Al
| tirmed.
Goldsticker ct al. vs, Ford, county
| judge, from Milan county. Opinion 10y
ptdNLpn j. II Is tNlhtul, from lle pro-
| visions OF the act of April 1, 1881, that
the legislature intended the pena
$ atute (P G. Art. 376) to remain in full
force and the liability of party win,
vic aies its provisions in no manner tt
| be affected by that act. IL stat.
ute prohibits an act under penalty L
be enforced by indictment, and subse
quent statute gives a quiotGm action Ion
4 like penalty, the latter Is merely Gu
nulatiVe of and does not repeal tn,
| criminal statute, or iuterpose any ohsta
| cle to the action by indictment. In
suit on bond given by retail liquo
dealer, a person may be prosecuted AN,
| punished under article 376, y. c., fn
knowingly selling or giving, or causin,
20 ho sold or gwen, any spirituOus, Vi
nous M intoxicating liquors To q miuo
without the consent IN writing OF th
father or guardian, aud at the saml
time, under tho contract, Cy
idcnrei 10y his bond, ho held liable In tn
civil action tor the sum agreed 10 be pni,
10 the county on breach of the COudI
TONS OF the houd. Under the Law
parent who might keep such am estab
h~hmeut as Is contemplated by the stat
ute, having executed tbe bond, Wou,t
break ITS conditions and ho liable to
civil action II no knowingly permitte,
his own child tn enter upon and remain
In such an establishment. As would ON,
also who permits any such miuor so b.
10, eN ON with the written consent Of th,
! nWent or guardian of such minor. Al
! lirmcl.