Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-06

<AhILNA.As fraudulen. intent existed a.
lo.Ica Al the

.,,v for THE tAHh, ro,rts
', s.psI'.' Z d me Appellate Courts
fszas surg COURT
sur f,ei,W from Williamson
sh0n The plaintiff I SescH that she
50 ,ili ,ssd which b passed title .,.t to
Eyed d iseser,y out of the source re
!, lain s thereto to y, pe 'rsn1,jneness
Isn Of p,othse defendant; The
,hrovnn a VI produced testimony
bow 'ba ..a 'ns and that the grantor
genulnnee,, in the deed, IN the
purpoalpeth The deed was executed.
plsi isa Eject that the signatures
n 70 Ia ,;.s land and that the grantor was
= II when the deed DIP puf dsSendan NJ
Been end evidence impeaching the
eleIs;t,b The nlaintifi's witnesses ana
i! !yI. y t the genuineness OF , the
p ss SsIS That objection to this last
hs rs, properly overruled. AT
s \, water Company vs. White, from
MS ,uty. It's provided by stat
Y v'p denial of the execution by
' a,i !, by bis authority, Of any in
81 y IN writing, upon which any
,'sr Il Il founded in whole or in
guy charged to have been exc
~ g. him i'm or by his authority, not
a,a N Ia lost or destroyed, must be
y X pv AFFIDAVIT. The written in
a~ sa !! upun which this action is
tai "a hang ~ such, the rule applies.
" court did not err in so holding.
,a,ed. Stayton, j.
I,ss',snr.',icnai & Great Northern Rail-
Rritt. from Bexar county.
,htion or service thereof is
"a an motion of the defendant
s..sm NAV be continued for the term,
~ @fendant viii be deemed to
! y s.,,red appearance for the next
Al motions that do not go to
inertia Of the suit pending may be
~. Of at any time before the trial
4, cause. 1t not appearing that
uurt acted upon or was requested
supou general and special demur-
objection that the court erred In
,nipg the same cannot be con-
IA. As showing the extent OF
il was proper to allow witnesses
,.,ify that the appellee was thrown
ditch by the blow ofappellant's
motive. Testimony as to amount
by witness for medical attention
ls appellee was admissible. The
srce Is ample to sustain the yer.
Affirmed. Stayton, j.
at. Ry vs.. /. II. II. Kinney, from
y:On county. The action in thi.
vas .or damages for the killing OF
d daughter Of the appellee, and
The injury of Ida NJ, another
,hler. The verdict awarded dam.
in the amount of 500 for the death
Asone, and SOP for the injury OF
ether, and $3.50 for the support o
latter. The matters in controver.
Urn upon the same questions in,
I'D in the case of the III. IL Il. q
u Ida NJ. Kinney, post. Tn,
Eeiples asserted in that Gaze are re
'iedin this, and the judgment il
med. West, j.
ans Pacific Railway VS.. Nichol
rom Tarrant county. Arts. 2S2
R.yised Statutes provide especial,
The carrier common law liability
Eth shall commence from the tim,
alll Of lading is signed, and tina
ylaus thereto they shall be liabl,
swarehousemen for goods place.
adi depots or warehouses, to b,
FsafleI transported. They do no
nplihe carrier from such liabilii,
fhsnbject to in common will
Jus III other occupations. Tn,
'ge not making appellant liable q!
lalen carrier while the stock wa
I'D, but defining its liability I,
lS under similar circumstance
M De that of au ordinary person
loI error. II is not essential tina
NY oe common carrier in orde
liability may attach to the viola
uacontract, nor does the fac
nels such relieve the liabilit,
sly because bill of ladipg has no
signed. When the bill of ladinj
sna liability as common carrie
Az losses except those occasione,
.as act Of God attaches. a carrie
slller into a contract without
y lAaing, part of which is to b
,olnea before the goods are III
.sOi actual transportation, and /
Slhe contract would be bindin
aGlher persons, it will be bindin
MN, the company refusing t
ssi cattle at a date spec
10 The agreement, is liable ft
.,ses resulting from any delay b,
sa sueh agreed time and actual r,
y. damages recoverable on
~ ol contract are such as wi
psasale for the loss sustaine.
ale such as naturally result frol
msach or as may fairly be With
neg, Willie.
lainrlght vs., Hearn, from Grayse
IVY; Where actual damag
~ nsu appear too remote, exceptit
y. "a ps'i.ion therefor is properly su
~, ~ Speculative or contingel
w. arc not recoverable as damage
nnsy's fees are not ordinari
' rhle as actual damages, b
snsie they are part of the dan
,auillng as the natural and pro
\ ' s', o. the act complained I
aueged as constituting 4
~ damage of $500 were not sui
gs ~ q which to derive the legal &C
MI H. a,al lhesacrifice of the proper
S,n sa ron the suing out of the
T'l .ai! Here exception was pre-
xl I,s'alned, Written statenie
'', , involving only the res
~ PERSONAL interview batwe
s I'm ana PLAINTIFFS intentions 6;
~ Me settlement of his del
N ,mopefly excluded. Affirm
'poit OF Walker commission
l,,,,, oouRr OF APPEALS.
niv ns y, vs.. State, from Be,
ny. II Z. Inc question at issue was
sn ahuafd Of value Of tue arti