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

uCIScu tne uoIeS IN Dlank and deliV-
cred them to the plaintiff. 1.-THE
only question to be determined in this
case, say the court, sis whether the
statute of limitation was suspended
by the death of Allison" The notes
were executed in August, 1875, and
became due in February 1876. They
were transferred to plaintiff, Davis,
in July, 1876. AM Allison died in Sep
TENDER, 1878. Held "That the hmi-
tation will not apply to a case
where there is some one in eSSe who
can bring suit. In this case a cause of
action accrued to the PLAINTIFF when
the notes were transferred to him, and
1t was not taken from him by the
death of Allison"
T. A. 81 Peter Fay VS.. Queen Insur-
ance company, from Grayson county ;
appeal dismissed for want of proper
showing on the record. Opinion by
Judge Delany.I
G. Gwinn VS.. w. W. Childers ct al,
from Guadalupe county; affirmed.
Opinion by Chief Justice Willie; con-
troversy as to whether certain land
was the property of Mrs. Brown or
her husband, it being alleged that the
property had been conveyed to Mrs.
| 1JlOWh Will d LUZ JQ6
benefit of the husband. 1t was ad-
mitued that the consideration paid for
the land, alleged to be $500 was really
a negro slave, and it was as to the
ownership of this slave at the time
that the only conflict in the evidence
occurs. If the slave, say the court,
clear that the land for which the slave
nUHhnnrn1 hnooron fnS,
property also. But the proof on part
of defendent was that the negro was
given to MIS-. Brown by the father of
| her hueband, to be held for his use
and benefit, the object being to pro-
tect him from the debts which the
husband had contracted. Held: "The
principle commended for by appellant
that when property charged with Il
trust exchanged TO; other property,
the latter is held subject to the same
trust is not applicable where the wife
is the trustee and the husband the
beneficiary, at least without showing
it was the intention of the parties to
preserve the trust relation. The prop
er construction of the present deed
whether the testimony of the plaintiff
or of the defendant was to be believed
by the jury was that the title to the
land, vested under the deed in Mrs.
Brown, and this construction was for
the court alone to make, and there was
no necessity for the jury to pass upon
any fact in the case.
Richard Scalfe VS. r. V. Tompkins,
from Collin county: reversed and re-
manded. Willie, chief justice. Con-
}troversy about the purchase of ma
chinery and allegations of de-
ception as to its character, etc. Held:
The plea in reconventionisno not confined
to cases where the original suit was
on ga Imoneyed demand, but may
be interposed in any case where the
matter pleaded comes within the de-
script;o1 Given in art. $50 Revised
Statutes.
ID. Z. Zelipp ct al. VS.. Sue M. Jel-
nings, from Collin county. Opinion
by associate justice Stayton. Action
based on defamatory language. Held:
The fact, says Judge Stayton, that the
witness, Meads, did not testify to all
that was alleged in the petition, was
no reason for excluding his evidence.
The evidence was only such as gave
the statement of Mrs. H., showing that
Bette Lyons was, in her estimation,
woman of unchaste character; all OF
which but tended to show that the
language used in reference to the
appellee was intended by the speaker
to be understood, and was understood
by the nearer, to mean that Bette
Lyons was common prostitute, and
that of like character was the appellee.
Held 1T was not error to admit such
testimony. The testimony of j. NJ.
and M. F. Lund, tending to show
that after the institution of this
suit Mrs. z. used language of SIM
| liar import to that made
| the foundation of the action is re-
ferred to the appellee, while not adj
| miSSible as cause for action was adj
missible for the purpose of showing
the malice of the speaker in using the
language on which the action was
based. In actions of this character it
is not essential thai the language
used, should with technical accuracy,
as would be required in an Indictment
charge the commission of crime;
words calculated to induce hearers to
believe that the person of whom they
are speaking is guilty of crime, in
this respect are sufficient.
Uuder the averments of the petition
PLAINTIFFS damages could not be re-
Stricted to such loss as she sustained
by injury to reputation, nor to such
as would be fair compensation 10
her for the shame and modification
to which she might be subject, through
the conduct of others toward her
caused by the defamatory language
alleged. The tenth instruction asked
and refused was properly refused; for
it proceeded upon the theory that the
language used was not actionable per
Sc. The eleventh was properly re-
fused, for there was no fact in the
case which would have justified a
charge on defense Of limitation.
Justice StaytOn's opinion is an able
and elaborate one, covering twenty
two pages of legal cap; and for sever
al errors indicated by the records the
judgement of the lower court Is re-
Versed and the case remanded.
John Frazier ct al. VS.. Woodward,
Squires & Co., from CoryeQ county.
Reversed and remanded.
w. b. Aiken VS.. Hale & Mcdonald
from Lamar county. AffirmeS
Texas aud Pacific Railway Co. VS..
David McClanahan, from Lamar
county. Affirmed. Judgment below
was against McClanahan.
S. r. Jeffrey VS.. &. A. Graham, from
Young county. Affirmed.
+. T. Chase VS.. S. j. Rowan, from
Hill county. Affirmed.
j. M. Poe ct al. VS.. Headley Polk,
from San Saba county. Reversed and
remanded.
Samuel Schultz ct al. VS.. w. s. Lam
pert, administrator from Ell Paso
county. Affirmed.
F.V. Daniels VS.. Western Union
Telegraph Co., from Grayon county.
Affirmed.
II. & T. c. Ry. Co. VS.. Hicks. from
Dallas county. Reversed and re-
manded.
In Daniels VS.. the Western Union
telegraph company; damages were
laid at So, 1929 including 1925 tolls
for alleged negligent failure to deliver
two messages from Sherman to New
! York relative to cotton transactions;
| $500 exemplary damages were also
claimed. Daniels got judgment only
| for $725.
In H. 81 T. G. R'y Co. VS.. Hicks
Mrs. Hicks obtained verdict below for
$1,26O for the death of her minor son,
caused by the explosion of locomo-
tive in Dallas. The court holds the
rule of evidence applicable to the case
to be as stated by Wharton: "The
statements as well as the con-
| duct of an agent during the
performance of tort are imputable
to the principal as part of the res
| ,octaa tuhanavar the tort ia S0 i'm