The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-26
THE COURTS.
courr OF APPEALS.

Markle va. Scott, OF rarrlnt county. Mo-
ton to dismiss tne appeal, bsSad, moDE
other grounGs, upon a misdescription ia
the bond. Tho judgmenl was rendered
and is dated on Thursday, December losh,
| 1888 The bond desert as the Judgment as
one iendered IN the 10 day o. December
A. d., 1888 and bearing intesssi from that
date. The IL u fatal variance for which the
appeal must be-, and 10 dismissed.
Howard vs.. Moore Ell al; nom Grayson
county. In thle case, there are no bill OF
eycentons which can no considered by ths
court. The bills OF exceptions IL the re-
cord are Incorporated Ia the stat ment of
facts, which was flod aftei the adjourn.
ment OF court, and they cannot therefore
be considered, % Texas Law Reviaw, CT;
idem. 0s). In the absence Of such bills Of
exception, there is no error apparent OF r. =
cord and the judgment ia affirmed.
Hill We. the State; from Bowie county,
Appellant was convicted OF murder in the
eecond degree, for the murder of Salie
Fort and sentenced to five years imprison.
ment. As presented TO Ia by the record,
| there is no error apparent. The evidence
simply supports the verdict and judgment.
| The charge OF The court and the indict-
ment are both good and sufficient, and the
judgment Is affirmed.
Rolin vs.. the s, ate; from Fapnin county
Appellant was cow icted oil the manslsugh-
ter OF Thomas Pratt and his punishment
assessed at three years imprisonment. The
record brought to this court con aims no
bill OF exceptions, and the evidence being
sufficient and no fundamental error ppear-
ing OF record. the judgment Is affirmed.
Fondren vs.. the state; mo. 29i9) from
Ellis county. In this case the appellant
was convicted OF an aggravated assault and
battery, committed with sti'k on one J.
+ Loak, and fine OF $25 assessed. There
was no exceptions taken 10 tho case, nor is
II commended that the verdict is unsupp )rted
by the evidence. There IL no error aud the
judgment Is affirmed.
6snner VS.. the State; from Tarrant
county. Tnis IL An appeal from a copvic.
ton for an aggravated assault and battery
committed on one Kahn. The motion for
continuance was properly overruled rs the
esmo did not show tina necessary and proper
diligence. Defendant should have caused
an attachment to bs issued for the absent
witnesses. A careful inspection of tho
record fsils to reveal any error aud the jgd;.
meut ia affirmed
Fordren VS. the State, No. 1850 from
Ellis county. Opinion by Wilson, j. With
out consuming space To set forth The evi.
dence in detail, IL IN sufficient to state mat
the evidences IN the case fails TO show any
act com ,oittsd by the defendant, which In
lsw would constitute an assault, ana be.
cause the verdict Is not warranted by the
proof the judgment 10 reversed and the
c9use remanded.
Short et. al, Va. tue State; from 20 lin |
county. Opinion by Wilson, !. rhe elect |
OF general denial puts in issue oil mater. |
ial Issues In PLAINTIFF petition. In pro-
csedlng upon y forfeited bail bond the cita-
ton serves as petition. A general denial |
puts IN issue all the allegations constituting
The states cause OF action, aud casts on the
state the burden Of proving such alega.
lions. The court therefore, erred, q gen.
efsl denial being pleaded. that
no issue Of fact had been presen ted in
ne, case. THE RICH. OF trial by jury
,ivi suit is entitled to a trial oy jury on
'omplylpg With the Law. Proceedings in
orfeited bail cases after judgment nisi and
issuance Of citation being the same as civil
'ases. Trial In such cases are governed bv
he rules governing OWL cases. Appellants
having complied with the law, were i'm
refused q trial by jury. A peace
,fficer under a warrant OF arrest for TEL
nv, has no authority to take bail, but must
orthwith take the accused before the
roper magistrate. Reversed and die
Missed.
Texas & Pacific railway vs. Wheat: from
'srrant county Opinion by Hurt, J.
When the petition in substance alleged
hat appellant az common carrier was en-
aged In transporting cattle from points be-
ond the lines oil its road; that IN connec.
ions with other roads 1t shipped cattle on
Trough bills OF lading, at agreed rates tor
be whole route, the contracts and bills OF l
iding OF each railroad being recognized
nd carried out by the other; that plaintiff |
eliversd to o certain company as q com. {
ION carrier, aud connecting lire with APP :
ellant, certain cattle OF named value, I
cd said company received said .
attle to be conveyed afro
, Fort Worth; that because of the failure y
said company to carry out the contract 7
) alleged certain OF the cattle died that a. /
:. 4 station on appellants road. plaintiff /
that the cattle be taken out and !
altered and fed. which the agent refused; /
lat by reason OF various acts of negligence s
appellant certain OF the csttle died, or
ere Injured, etc !, ana plaintiff failed TO
Ter In evidences either the bill Of laiing or !
her contract of shipment. Held: The
stitton declaring on a bill of ladior, with {
NJ its Introduction in evidences, or without n
for its non production, plaintiff G
as not entitled 10 a Judgment. III tho in. 4
riss were received while the cattle we're 6
possession Of the carrier and through its q
delivery to the shipper viii not G
leve the carrier from liability. Revers d h
I'd rem snded.. y
hey Relieve at Once. h