Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-31

will NOS affect the right to recover
damage thereto, his right OF action
for damage being based upon his in
dividual contract. Reversed and re-
manded. Stayton. j.
Franklin vs. Herman, from Calves
ton county.-It is the duty of the trial
Judge, and not of counsel, ~ submit to
opposing counsel bills OF exceptions.
The effect of direlection IN this how
ever, in view of the disposition OF it on
other points need not be decided. Bills
of exception to evidence proposed that
state the proposed evidence aud mere
ly recite that appellee objected and
was sustained by the court, are too gen
eral for consideration. In n suitable
ease, where it becomes necessary To do
il, improper and uncslled-for reflec-
lions upon parties tn the suit by coun-
sci, when not warranted by the EVIL
dence, is cause for reversal. Referring
to the tabular statement attached 10
the deposition Of the comptroller, in
relation to the sale OF the Galveston
city lots to II by the Republic of
Texas, the court charged that the eX-
hibit was competent of tue facts 1t con-
tanned as to H.'s purchase and pay
ment. While this was true, its effect
was neutralzed by the preceding pnr-
ton which was substantially that II
they believed the state sold 10 II. the
lots,and IL. paid the purchase money,
they should find FOR defendant, but
unless they believed the purchase
money was paid TO the state they
should find for plaintiff. And 1t was
error TO charge: 1.-THE tabular state
ment annexed rs an exhibit to the
comptroller's deposition is admissible
"a evidence before the jury, but the
jury are Judges of the weight and credl-
bility of the evidence" inasmuch as II
authorized the jury to believe or not,
the facts stated in the paper to be true
and that too, though there might be no
evidence to controvert it. The testi'
mony in this case suggests the exist
euce of other highly important testi'
mony which should he produced on
another trial. Reversed aud remand
ed. West, j.
Supreme Council American Legion
Of Honor VS.. Anderson, from Wharton
county agreement or counsel
with reference to certain, though
sweeping in its terms, was not such AS
could preclude the objection or ap'
pellant 10 the competency, etc, OF the
benefit certificate. The objection was
overruled not upon that ground, but
because not good in itself. The olJec'
ton, however, should have been sus'
tanned, inasmuch as it pointed out .
material variance between the benefit
certificate declared on. and that offered
-. q Il
rance can he cured by amendment
Appellant insists that, rs tile certin'
cate does not bind il TO pay the fulj
amount OF 5000, but only out or III
benefit fund an uncertain amount no'
TO exceed S. ,0OO, the onu5 was on the
appellee to show that its fund wa
such rs TO enable 1t to psy tina
amount. The position was not wei
taken, inasmuch as the appellant, anc
not appellee, has access to the book
OF the concern and able TO ascertain IL
status. If not large enough, that nae
was a matter of defence which Is no
set up. Reversed and remanded
West, J.
Texas & New Orleans Railway Co
vs. CrowdeI ct al, from Harrla couh
ty.-It has been previously held, in al
unpublished case, that the fact that
minor was employed as brakeman b.
u railway company, without the con
sent of the parent, did not authorize
recovery Of damages 10y relatives; tina
q minor might make contract withou
the consent OF parents which woul'
create between himself and the railwa.
the relation of master and servant
md ttstsl, -, 4, - I,sftaO aud liza
biiilies which attach to that relation
The charge of the court in this, whicl
was case ofseeking recovery for dea
of minor employed without consent
the court charged the converse oil I'M
rule which WAS error. The charge wa
otherwise erroneous in that II include
no question the appellants negligence
Reversed and remgnded. Stayton, j
I. w. House Va. a. Faulkner, fron
Harris ocunty.-This suit was base
upon an instrument in writing signe
ny. the appellant, for himself anu
behalf OF the international Rail~a
company, promising to pay A b, OOO
bonds OF the company 10 be issued b
The state OF Texas. The instrnmeu
passed into the hands OF appellee b
transfer. II was dated August 3, 1871
The suit was dismissed rs to the raj
road under plea Of non est Jacthn
me question turned upon the action
the court Ia overriding defendant
general demurrer 10 plaintiffs pct
moh. In this action the court erre'
ne act Incorporating the Information
raiifoad was passed August o, lo.
! .~o days subsequent to the executio
! ~ me instrument, and by and throug
we act 81 OF incorporation solely. sr,o'
! any claim the company ever bad
any bonds Issued by thes.at of Texs
!. anu henee II appears the parties we
o1hlracting with reference TO matt
which had no existence. II then WI
1 noe aeontract ssieo OF bonds; for no sue
i SbuhttAct can be made OF a thing n
h having potential existence. For g
4 ~. "a overriding the demurrer 10 u
,u,euuon The Judgment is reversed an
'he cause reinanded. Willie, Z. j.