The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-05
THE COURTS.
Our Appellate Courts Pass Oh Probes
maticai Point,
And Make Worry Crooked Paths Seem
ingly Straight.
SyllabiI OF Noteworthy Declnions.
cOuRr oFAPPE,L1,

the game OF monte" The ever yiRilan
county attorney, discovering the game 81
Of "the key hole la the door, HE'D Inn u
the temple OF justice and forthwith a com
plant anu iniurm alton Issued, causing ssic
appellant or AT 20 Ivy fear uf rayishsc
pocKet. Game, app, lisnrs attorney nnt
knowing the lhero was more law thuo Jie
ticr, iortLSih questioned the L.
gahty Of tho term oil tho couniy
court held on the lst Monday
In October, 1873. But thia count holds ,bn
IL must DO presumed that such term oi ths
court WIS held by virtue OF an Ger OF Ia
county commissioners cOur made undel
che 1u huTitP OF tns amendments 10 Tbs
contribution Aud 10, the gene OF :, monte
mus, so, VI else be pad Tor It's Indulgence
Affirmed.
--COnyicion for betting a. gaming rGtk,
which was had NJ n term oil the county
cDu,t, held OF the first Noudag In OctoDs r.
1885. Hold: Whore ,he record IL client ~ 10
the authority by which such te'm OF
court was heli, Il mus. b. presumed
that tuch term " court
was held by vr ue OF an order OF ihs
coun,y mmissioners court, duly entorad
aud msda under the authority OF the
amend m,nts 10 the cousti, u,ion. Affirmed
Joynss Va. tho S,ete from Milan county.
This q. anothar OF Il sogies oil cases uih med
on this day In which the cole question Is NJ
TO the legality OF the term oil the county
court AT watch tho conviction was held, to-
wit: Ona held on the lrts Monday in octo-
bsr, 1888, IN authority appearing OF record.
Hello; Upon the authority OF Lynn W. the
state, supra, this cause Is atiitmef.
SUPREME COURT,
TYLER W.. Davis o. al; from Llano coun-
ty. Opinion by Willie, @. ]. The state
msut OF let's not being filed within the re-
CURED time cannot be considered, put
where the Judge has placed upon record his
conclusions OF fact which sre hot disputed
they will be regarded u, the fair and reas-
onabl. suit OF tho .acts proven. This ia
suit BIZ appellees. the landlords, against up
pellant, taelr tonsOt, OF trespnss 10 try ti,le,
nv reason OF the latter holdiOg over after III
expiration Of his lease. Cause submitted
TO the court without jury and Judgme.
rendered for sppellees Tor the lano, aud $40
damages and costa Of suit. To su9tsin
his ect,ca no c,her evidence except the
lease and the value Of thu use aud oocupa.
ton. The tenant or'einelly entered on the
land as n naked trespasesr; sft"rward inada
a CONTRACT To purchase II from appetizer.
and subsequently, cancelled this contract
and ngreeu TO occupy the land as n ten
ant. IL Is contended shat under the plea "'
mot guilty" sppel'ees should have shown
a poou title to the land. Held, First, Il
tenant cannot dispute his landlords title,
Second, This rule 10 sppiiea Ms well to suils
for recovery OF possession ~ In suits Tor rent
Third, The &c ion Of irespsss TO Try tit'
while abollshing tue forms and hctions ol
eiec,msnt, presuGies most OF It's suostahtir
primo pals, among otbers, that wh'le III
other cases, the plaintiff must 20 back 10
the government. or common sourct yel
as to one eetopped TO dew his title, II u
sufIic,ent to est1bl Ell the facts supporting
the estoppe.. Fourth, This case does not
come within any exception to the general
rule tn Ut u tenant cannot dispute hia lant
lord, title. Fifth, A naked trospnsser q
other occupant attaining 70 party
cannot dispute such parties tile without
sho wing some title or right Of possession / =
himself derived from another source thun
the lease OF the party whose TILE he ois'
putes. Affirmed.
International & Great Nor,bern railway
va. Trunuerman; from Comal county.
Ooin.on by West, ]. Fire', Tns caption 10
the transcript 'ails 70 show when the term
of court At whjs 'his case was tried eudod,
lint IA the recJru Z. stively shows thnt
court was In session Oh June 10th, when
the order was made granting ten
days after adjournment IN when
m lilo statement of iacts, aud said state
ment sss flied within ten days from that
date. Held The statement Will be- con.
sidered. second, While judicial notice VIII
he taken OF the tine fixed for the COM
mencement Of session Of court OF record,
uuch like notice cannot be taken OF u
duration of any particular session OF such
court. Third, When the evidences dircios
that plaiutitT aud her husband had been IN
Quiet and actual possession OF tue locus IN
quo tor eighteen years before tho SUIT was
brought; That after biz deNn, pliintlH hui,
for four years before the SUIT, oeen In undl'.
tnrben possession OF the injured property,
as her homestead occupying IL ~
,urt iyiag widow aud head Of - IN nily,
and ALSO that ali her children ncquiesceo
and con .snled to IT. Eeic First, as 4
matter OF tact, without reference to their
consent, the surviving widow, AZ tho head
o, family, is entitled during a, ne 70
sxoluslv, possession and enjoyment OF the
homestead. Second, This species q; pos
ses,ion constituted sufficient Iitlo Tor
plaintif to maintain an action like this
tor d.msee. as against the defendant.
The cases OF May VS. Sade. IA Tsxa., 20o)
and Miller vs.. Brownton, (o0 Iexa., ooz)
re sent an entirely different case rom this.
Four,h, In asut Tor damages causen oy
lrnins from sparkle emitted from loco
n olive eueine, the general rule ", that
when the pr perry " destroyed BY ire
along. or nsar the railroad track; II II be
affirm stiyely shown That the fire did SC
finally occur from sparks oil flfe emitted
ftom the engiue. tben the burden restS on
the Company to show thai lneIe was no
=
Fifth. In order TO charge the railroad, the
-iarv must In every Instance, had sthfn, =
xtyelv taat the sparks o! hre Causing The
damage. escnpei from the en- ,
through toe negligence
sery.nts. or AREN'T. SIKH, The barn ny,
/ 40 iujury, the escaNe oil Ire from iae o9pI
pany's engine, aud the negligence a'e al
facts be alleged. AID proved ~ -Neiy
case. Bur they can bs proved ke any
other facts, by aucl y, riinent evidences o.
will satisfy g Teasouaole mind OF THERE xlsl.
encs. Nv. end w. Don Rep, Sec coz, 2
Texas Law R-viog. 80; Texas Law X :
y.sT, 1891. Affirmed,
Barclay ct al We. FrieSd & Co; from
D.lls. county. Opinion by Watts, J
Adoptsd Ia ruit f. r damages ayaipst
the shsr,ff aud his tureties, by reason OF
ssid cher n having levied an attachment n
a stock OF eoods, claimed By plsiuiifs by
purchase 1T combined sale by the ss-
signes under lhe assignment Of the s'tac' I.
log cstt r and two Others holdine dss q
oftrust and . mortgage respectively on the
eoods. obi c,ions were made to the tatrocu' :
ton IN evidence OF the deed OF assignment;
that ''ths officers O rt!fcate falls TO ssats
that tbs parties exempted the same for the
purpos.s and considerations therein ex'
preesad :" and tbstthe same 'is void on IL
fsce. because u fails u describe suy prop
ertv." and does not give the statue o, .ocs'
ton o. aoy property, s1u VIC Iesos ss'S.s'
Of prsparty "thereundsr are vagns, indenn'
lie ard uuoertAin." Held frat, Tbs
csrti6csts being tested By the law 10 frs
prior TO the adoption Of the Revised Sss,'
usss, 10 sufficient. II 10, and they ssch
for hlmseH duly acknowledged and exscu
led tss same" (2s Tsxss, l7s) ssossd-
The second srouna Of objection 10 un'ss
able. The description L.: "All esd s,nsu-
l.r the lapds, tensnerts. and hersdits
,nsnts md ap,.urte ne uces goods, chattsls
promissory notss, debts. chooses 10 action
demands, property. credits and Effects o
evcry HAD and description belonging "
ths said parties Of the first part, o.