The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-04

closed that tia property was owned jointly
by appellee and another. Tho only ques-
ton presented ~, whether ons OF Joint own
ers can by hlmeif maintain the suit. Held;
In M actlon 20 recover properly 10 case OF
n Joins bsilment all OF the Joint ownorB
must Join rs plaintiffs. Joint creditors,
whether hy record specially or by
simple oontraot, must all Join In an
action To recover the debt or estate
which they respectively hold together (2s
Texas 32S). Therefore. all who are Jointly
Interested must Join IN the suit when dam
ages are sough. tor iujury 10 or destruction
Of propsrcy. This rule also applies IN suits
Tor damages TO- property owned Jointly and
In common. Reversed end remanded.
E4osrnno ys. tire State; from BeXsr
county. 0plnion by Hurt, J.. Conviction
for murder OF the first degree aud punish
msnt assessed OF death. Error -
assigned IN tho refusal OF the court to
charge the law applicable to mRnslauShter.
based upon tho supposition that deceased
used insulting words towards the wife OF
tho defendant Held: AS no exception
was takon at the time 70 this omlsiion, nor
CONTRARY instruction asked, and ~ II 10 not
made TO appear tina, the omission was inju-
rlous TO the defendant, hut on tho contrary,
that the insulting words were not tho
cause OF thu homicide. the assignment ID
not well taken. The objection made that
| Language Of the defendant 80 thnt be could
understand 1t Is not we'll taken, as |. does
not atllrmatiyely appear from the record
that such was not done. Whsre IL does not
sppsar hut that defendant was present
when his motion for new trial was over
ruled, but il does appear that bis presence
was expressly waived by hto counsel, 1t
will be presumed that hts connssl had su-
| tbority to make such waiver. Affirmed.
Galveston, Harrisburg II San Antoaio
railway VS.. Jackson, from Uald county.
Opinion by Wilson, !. Appellee recovered
judgment against appellant Ia ths .lussioe
court for sl36. Csrtiorari was obtained 10
the county court which on motion was dis-
missed Held correct. The petition for
cer,iorarl fails TO show tho evidences upon
which the Judgment was based. The only
allegation in the petition as 10 the evidence
was that, "said Jackson introduced him
self and two other witnesses Who teSlluei
to the values OF said stock, which velnss
petitioner states were extrayagant aud uu-
reasonable and NOT warranted by Inc
number; that there was no po'iiive
evidence introduced 20 prove the killing OF
said RNimals, that the above and foregoing,
40 fts.ed, " all the eviienc9 edduced on said
trlsl.n Affirmed.
Chapman Va. the State; from Atssooss
county. Opinion by Wilson, j.. This case
| being q misdemea lor, over which tho jus.
/
| iuri.dictioa, exclusive OF the district court,
this conviction is void, unlsss jurisdiction
had been conferred upon the dis
trics court Of Ataso1sa county under Art.
9, SEC. 90, Const. Held: This was done
| by the act OF March 10Th, 1882 Caws Is leg.
page 2i), which divests the county court 81
county OF Jurisdiction over criminal
cases. II rests in the district court exclu-
sive Jurisdiction over ell criminal cases
then pend ng in said county court, aod
procseds: "And in the district CONT shall
have aud exercise all the civil snd criminal
jurisdiction heretofore vested ia the county
court by the constitution aud laws aud lot
divested by this act" Az II is clearly OPP,
d trent that the word mot" was inserted
Nv mistake and N left would conflict with
ali other provisions OF the act and defeat
entirely the manifest intention aud pur'
nose of the act, such word Is disregOrded AS
| the act construed as though IL were not In
It. Tho act referred to does not Ia any Wsy
alfec. the Jurisdiction OF the justices OF the
peace OF Atascoss county, and they heyo
the very same jurisdiction nov tAat they
| had before IT, enactment. Affirmed.
Texas II Pacific railway Va. GIL d Beau
Champ; from Fannin county, Opinion hy
Wilson, ]. Appellees jointly rned appel
liant 10 recover for injurlsa done TO Land,
and cotton aud corn md oats thereon. by
reason Of defective cattle guards erected by
| land and trampled upon crops thereon.
The motion TO dismiss in tho lower court
was based or the ground Of an improper
| jonder OF pariies. Held: III the
right of action is in one me
person only, another cannot be
Joined with him as plaintiff rs Texas. S23).
Nor can one Joint owner alone maistsin q
suit TO recover his undivided or individual
Interest ia property destroyed. Where the
right of action 10 joint tho suit must be
brought by all who are untitled to redress
| (2S Texas, 1923; SAyles & Bassett's Pl. q Pr.
SEQ. 27s, w. e. w. Con. Rsp. sec 2il9);
When the suit is brought by the landlord
and tenant snd the proof shows that the
landlord rented the land to such ten
ant and was to receive portion
of the crops as suoh rent. Held: They were
Joint owners OF the land and could main.
tain this suit. Where the tenant had
rented the land for the next year. and the
land was damaged 50 that 1t would be
more dificult 10 cultivate Tor snch year
and the same was temporarily damaged,
ths suit was properly brought by them
Jointly. Affirmed.