Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-18

of damage In this case was the proba- |
BILE amount deceased, had he not been
killed. would have contributed to the
support OF appellee, and determining |
that amount, the age and probable |
length OF time the mother would live,
as well az that of the son had he not |
been killed, and the probability of his
continuing to contribute. In connec-
ton with the measure of damages, the
charge was such as might have misled
the jury. Reversed and remanded on
report Of Watts, commissioner.
l. x G. y, Co. vs.. Nicholson, from
Bcxar county. Where defendant
desires 10 show by extraneous evidence
that the value of the subject matter is
falsely estimated in order to confer
jurisdiction, he must plead 1t, when
| 1t becomes question OF fact for the
| Jury To determine. The mere fact that
the plaintiff claimed more aud re.
covered less than 5000, would not Dust
the Jurisdiction OF the district court In
case where 1t had Jurisdiction of de.
mands for 5000 and upwards. The
jury found for plaintiff the sum of
sos SO, the amount claimed, and this
verdict in view of the charge on the sub
| ject OF Jurisdiction must be held to
have included finding that the court
had Jurisdiction. II was urged that
the court should have charged
that the measure of damages
was the value of the goods at the
place of destination, less cost OF trans.
portation. Such Is the general rule AS
applied To common carriers. But there
was no evidence TO show difference
in value between the places of ship
ment and destination, and Desides the
goods being secondhand clothing
could scarcely be said TO have other
value than the value TO the owner,
which should furnish the rule upon
which he should recover. However.
when the charge. not being clearly
wrong is still not definite ON u given
, subject, IL is the duty of the dissatisfied
party 10 request additional charge
} thereon. IL is only in cases where the
freight money has not been paid that
the amount of II IL to be deducted In
estimating damages. A witness offered
as an expert on a given subject OF in
quiry is properly rejected unless he
qualities himself as an expert. At
; firmed. Willie, c.
Nave ct nj. VS.. Britton, from Gray
son county. Unless void on It's face an
assignment was properly permitted to
/, 90 to the jury. The instrument In
this case conveys all the property, OF
every description, belonging 10 the
firm making the assignment. He'd,
; a Sufficient description. II the deed
!, OF assignment gives names of credit
d. ors, II is not vitiated by simple reason
!, of failure to, state the nature OF
: amount of their demands. Omission
in deed of assignment of statement
' of property or creditors and their de
all. a.
a vitiate the deed, and where such in
I tent ia not apparent on it's face, 10 eli
:, feet vi,iation II must be made apparent
u on proof before jury. When the at
', tachment was levied in this case, none
y of the debts were paid, Tor none of tn,
i, goods assigned had been sold. III valid
. the assignment passed the title of the
:, goods out of the assignors. BY levy
- ing the attachment the appellants be
:, cane trespassers, and If they wished
:, TO show their right to the property, o.
- that other creditors We're not injured
20 the onus was upon them. There wa
" no evidence to authorize the secont
!, charge refused. Affirmed. Willie
- G.. j.
ii Marx vs. Lange, Lewey 4 Co., from
% Caldwell county. Objected that In
e court erred In permitting plaintiff u
10 recall claimant's witness, after he ha'
!, been examined by claimant IN rebutta
~ and the testimony had closed, IN o, de
: 10 lay predicate for his Impeachment,
:. Such matters are so far committed 7
NJ the discretion of the court that, In AT
nj sence of palpable abuse, the judgmen
n will not be disturbed therefor. Objet
50 ton was urged to that part OF TN
40 charge which instructed that the proc
~ in support of Mrs. Marks claim mus
% be clear and abundant. Held, no
nj such error rs to authorize reversal
of IL was error to instruct the jury that
III appellant had invested 1900 OF ht
IN own separate money, IL would be pr'
o. tected from her husbands debts =
10. long as IL was so invested. The remall
ing charge had no support In the ev
NJ dence. and hence was error. Agar
IL Judgment should not have been rel
m dered against the husband. A iudt
a ment Tor the debt already eXiste
Al. against him, and the only effect of th
m was to render him liable for cost, III
10 penalty for which he was not respons
ne BILE. Reversed and remanded on r
no port of Delaney, commissioners.
ne CITY National Bank of Fort Wort
no VS., Stout. from Tarrant county. B'
as of exceptions should show whether a
II an application for "a continuance was
N. first or subsequent. But whether FIR
ial or subsequent, the application In th
me- case Is defective in that II does not NV
~ the use of due diligence. The mistai
NJ in the amount for which the draft WI
he drawn was made by the cashier OF Il
he bank, aud 1t does not appear that q
on pellee had any notice OF the mlstal
m when he handed the draft
mi the cashier with the
M anest that he inclose 1t, direct
Al. to G. and deposit II with the bani
zoo mail. However fraudulent the act
s5 G. In receiving more than he nae
90 nrohablv knew was entitled to be pal
The appellee cannot be made liable
ns the loss 10 the bank which result
,ai, from its own carelessness. That
an Judge hns refused to make stateme
ca. of facts found by him must be made
of appear i'm some way before such M
ess ter can be revised. a motion Tor 81
zen statement appears to have been ma
,ch about one month after trial, but &c
M. not appear to have been called TO !
he attention of the court. The qnesti
No. cannot be considered. Ailirmt
rits Stayton, j.
ore Fentress ct al. vs.. State, from Bea
ON county. The matters involved in u
ON cause were passed upon ut form
3D.. day OF the present term. Inc 1851
cen involved were thoroughly consider
one in an elaborate opinion delivered
me Wilson, j., full synopsis OF viii
'ore was reported In these columns. Il