The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-10-23
rns bIGUEE COURTS.
corWr or APPEALS.

ices from April -, iSS2, to January |,
lSSl aud anOtheS for services from Jan
uary !, 1851, to January |, 1851. The
petition alleged contract of employ
mert by tho month tor $40 per month,
said sum to be- paid nj the end of each
month. Ou motion tho two suits were
consolidated, and the amounts sued for
being beyond tho jurisdiction OF tho
county court they were dismissed,
Held over. Appellant, hid fright oi
action, upon failure OF appellee to pay,
at the end OF each month, aud had
the right To- sue iov tie entire amount in
one suit, or fox any part thereof rs he
desired, ard tho COurV erred IN dismiss
ing the case, Judgment o! cOnsOlida-
ton vacated, ana Judgment of dismissal
reversed Reyel Sed aud reminded.
Fort Worth ~ Denver railway vs..
Akard ct al, from CLAY county; opinion
by White, T.. ]. All the questions IN this
case We're made upon II statement of
faces in every material respect Identical
with the facts proven in this case, and
so far * deemed necessary, were fully
discussed by Us ut the last Austin term
in the case of the Fort Worth n Denver
railway vs. johnson Il Tritc, II reNps
Law Review, 2l5), Tor tho ronsons
stated and the law Hs declared in that
opinion. The Judgment In this case Is
reversed and the cause romandSd. Re
yerscd and reminded.
Texas ~ Pacific railway company VS..
Dyer from Palo Pinto county. Opinion
by White, y. ]. suit by appellee on nc
count for damages for destruction of &C.
dar posts. Judgment for appellee. APP
pellant appealed, and gave proper bond
and perfected his appeal uudCT all the
requirements of the law. The justice
diSregarded the appeal and issued exc
cutiOn, and iaileG to SEND up the papers
to the county. court. Appellant pre-
scented a petition To the county Judge
Sr,iing forth all Gle facts and praying
the count e. grant and issue its writ OF
ce.torari, with such manjate as will
compel the aid Justice 10 send up
the record as under HpPcGi IN SAID caus, ,
and that said cause be- tried
dc novo III the county court Petition
was sworn u by appcilautS attorney.
Court ordered the writ rs prayed Tor up
on petitioner giving bond for $500. In
tho county court the certiorari was dis-
missed Tor want of sufficient cause.
Held error, an appeal by ccrtiurari was
not intended as the object and purpose
of the petition. 1t was more in the ma
Gure Of maGdamus, and the court
.houd hav" tried the case on appeal
aa novo. Reversed and remandcd
Block vS. Wrilier ~ Son. from Milan
% UNITY: Opinion by Hurt, i. Where the
eLion, rs copied III the record. is at
90 led by the clerks az follows: "Wit-
SIS, w. ID. Pardeu, clerk of the county
court of Milan county. Given under
my hand and f-sdtl of Office at
'imeron, taia. the SlSt day
&. C., H.ilanl county" Il VIA DC pro-
eumed that the citation was anthem
ticated by TIC seal OF the court. tEarle
vs.. Thomas II Texas, 58; Glenn VS..
Ashcroft, Texas Law Review. ~.
) Where tho sheritl's return showed that
the citation was executed "by delivering
20 IL. Bl3ck the within named defend
ant, frno copy OF this writ" Held:
Suiicif,nt. Johnson vs.. Barthold. -
Texas, 5,,j; =, Texas, 55'O. Affirmed.
NoWliu vs.. Hughes ct al, from Gray
sen county; opinion by Wilson, j. APP
pell mt recovered Judgment agninst ap-
fpeileea IN county court. hppelIees
grahted, but no order made on minutes
/ to tNat effect. At same term Of court
the motion tor new trial was recOnsid-
cred and Ovcrruled. This action was
/ duly entered of record. The reconsider
alton tud overriding of the motion were
without notice to appcllees. Appellees
/ brought tAis INJUNCTION 10 restrain inc
! levy oiSan execution which had been is
sued Cd the above Judgment and was
I about ~ be levied. Judgment for APP
pelees restraining the levy of the oxe-
! cution aud granting appellee new
| trial in tn cause aud Tor I'll costs. Held
| error. It)was within the power or tho
| county court, ut the same time, to set
aside The Judgment granting appellees
motion for new trial, and under Judg-
ment overriding the motion. The APP
pelee had NO good cause for injunction.
! The court also erred in granting appel
! lees the new\trial, as there is no prayer
/ in the petition for general relief. Re
Yersed and DISMISSED.
IL ~
state from Sabine county. Opinion by
! Wilson j., Admission Of illegal testi-
/ ,nonv viii NOT he considered, without
/ the point is SERVED by bill of exceptions.
| 'Fhe court correctly charged that. "lf
YOU find that saiq declarations, CONVEX
Stations and STATEMENTS occurred and
were made ut said times and places, by
ness, and that the \defendant, Fed Con
nor, was present, a nd in such q position
| that he heard thG'ul aud that they were
OF such character, Sln0 occurred under
such circumstances, What called for reply
on his part, or thaF silence or acqul-
essence, amounted to- assent, then you
are authorized to consider the same in
connection with the pther evidence in
le case in determ ming the guilt or inno-
ocense OF said Fed C8nner." The evil
dence against both the defendants being
wholly circumstantial, the court erred
in charging the jury in these words.
'The evidence in the ease before you
being wholly circumstantial in so far as
it relates or is applicable TO the defend.
ant Charles Conner il is Unnecessary
etc. For no expressly links his charge
upon circumstGntial evidence to the case
OF Charles Conner, thereby giving the
Jury to understand that the case OF Fed
Conner did not depend wholly upon that
character of evidence, bud was sup
ported, in part at least, by Sdirect evil
dence. 1t being part OF tho Naw appli-
cable to the case, its omission was error;
so far as Fed Conner was nn. erned is
reversible error, even .Antth not
excepted to. Reversed aui ttI: 2uded
as to Fed Conner. hRumea as to
Charles Conner.
Morrison vs.. the tate, rot ytlSnn
county. Opinion or rohoagiHa ~ W hit.,
%. i. Under an r.iuor" ipHic'a l"n. .'r
thglt, conviction may h.. had 90 ngnyi
showing that the gaEin-, huECh .th
tho owners consent, N Ms NJ. Hfi Dy
false pretext or with in, 80 priNe
tie owners of the propert. aIi appro
pirate IT to the use and bene. OF the
Ataker. In order to sustain prosecu-
An for theft, when The taking was
-inally lawful, the proof MUST show
Mt the taking was obtained BY means
some false Dretext or with Intent to
bprive the owner OF the value OF the
operty spd appropriate i tola TO
61eRicus intent isl the,