Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-15

t"'e'es iShng ~ 10 make the contract
the note evidenced. Answer averred
that Il. prepared the note and was 10
pass upon the sufiiclency Of the secur.
tiles; that II. proposed to accept
note signed by appellant and 4. 4 Co.
ana n. and K. as sureties: that II.
TOOK the note, signed 1t by his firm.
ana procured the signature of appel.
liant; that Il. and X. declined to sign
II, when L. returned TO III. with such
information, when ii. agreed to accent
the note rs 1t stood. Held, insufficient
TO show notice to appellee of any
agreement between T. 4 Co. and an.
pellant. Affirmed. Stayton. j.
Ochon ct al. VS.. Grazs ct al. from
Bexar county. The sole contest in this
case was whether or not one ]. M. Il.
was OF sound mind at the time he ex.
ecuted the transfer of the certificate To
j. "A. q. upon which the land was nj.
forwards patented. Upon this point
the testimony was so completely con-
flicting. 1t Is difficult to determine ON
which side 1t preponderates. In such
cases, however. this court Is only called
upon to decide whether or not there
was sufficient evidence to support the
verdict. Such appears the fact in this
case. The court fairly submitted this
issue In the charge, Of which no COM
plant is made in this court. Where
fore this court cannot feel authorized
TO invade the province OF the jury.
Affirmed. Willie, c. J.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Betterlon, Irvine 4 Co. Va. Buck,
from Dallas county. Executions from
justices court are by law returnable
within sixty days from issuance, and
In absence of any contrary showing,
the presumption obtains that one U.s.
sued was so returned. Between re.
turn day of execution in this case,
and the filing of the claim bond
and affidavit in the county court, two
terms had elapsed. No time is pre-.
scribed by statute within which q
claimant to property taken under exc.
cution, shall file his honda affidavit
General proceedings are prescribed in
Arts. 4225, 1880, 1882 and 1885 of the Re
vised Statutes. Nor is provision mad,
in the statutes rs to citation or notice
upon either party. Objection that the
Judgment is erroneous because rem
dered for aggregate value of the prop
erty, instead of the separate value o
such article making the aggregate, !:
hypercritical. Affirmed. Wilson, j
Keenan, VS.. State, from Uvaldt
county. Upon charge of assault Il
murder, the defendant was convicted
Of an aggravated as sault and battery
and was fined 1925. Except for fund
amental error, the charge of the cour
cannot be considered In the absence o
a bill of exceptions. Complaint thai
the verdict was improperly reached
because the jurors having agreed upon
the guilt OF the accused agreed to sew
orally write upon piece of paper tn
amount of fine he favored, taking tn
mean average. Is not well taken, M
agreement as to lot having been made
The evidence being sufficient, and TIL
Indictment unexceptionable, the judg
ment is affirmed.
Xweifel vs. State, from Comanch
t county. Two cases. The indict
ments in these two eases were 70
J selling liquors on election day. The.
t charged simply that the accused di
: sell liquor on the eth day of November
) 1882, said day being then and there
: day of general election for state an
| county officers, and that said election
. vas then and there held. Held, this
, the indictment is insufficient In that
: does not charge that the election wa
t held in the precinct, town, village Q
t city of defendant, or wherein th
/ liquor was sold. Reversed and prose
!, cutons dismissed. Hurt, J.
' Trevine VS.. State, from Kline
b county. The conviction in this wa
Y for the theft of an AK, the property ,
!, one Carter. The penalty imposed wa
n q term of three years in the state pen
/, Tertiary. No bill of exceptions wa
: reserved TO the charge of the court,
:, which objections are urged in tn
court. Except for apparent funds
v mental error, the charge under sue
e circumstances will not be revised. II
S Indictment was sufficient, and the sil
r ticiency of the evidence is conclusiv
u Affirmed.
e Allen vs. State, appeal from Pa
: Pinto county. Presumably the Jffen'
5 ATTEMPTED TO be charged in the info
d nation is that of swindling as d
o nounced by article 100 of the Pen
II Code. IT. charges in substance, th'
c the appellant promised one Bradfoi
/. that il he, Bradford, would deliv
e four certain fish mt the house OF hir
T. the appellant, he would pay the sa
Y Bradford fifty cents for the sam
:. that the said Bradford did deliver u
II fish, and that the said representation
n of the appellant were false. Hell
s. insufficient to charge any ofiense..
a constitute swindling there must la
,e been false representations relating
le existing facts or future events. Me
r. promises or false professions Of int
l. linn though acted upon, are not SUI