The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-15
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

DurD. Judge OF Jnt lltn JUDICIAL us
trict, for the county of Lampasas, to
render iudgme.t in compliance with
the opinion and Judgment of this
court, in favor Of Marshall Wells and
against George w. Lit ltlield and his
sureties, on replevln bond, Hugh Lew
is and q. w. Dhwortb, for the sum of
81, 800, with ten per cent. per annum
interest from August 30, 81, in case
now on the docket of said court. num-
bered Alb, and entitled George w. Lit
tlelield VS.. Marshall Wells, which
cause was on appeal, reversed by our
said supreme court on the 9TH day OF
June, 1883, and remanded to the said
district court with directions as to its
final disposition, and to that end that
he set aside all orders of the said dis
trict court entered up since the 9th
day of December, 1885, in said cause
which i'll any manner interfere with
the rendition of said judgment in &C
cord;ince with this writ, that he APP
pear before the supreme court at Aus
tin, Texas, on the 18th day of the pres
ent month, and show canse, il any he
has, why this order and writ have not
been obeyed. The clerk will also give
notice Of the issuance of this writ to
the said Littlefeld. Lewis and Dill
worth, who reside in Gonzales county,
and to A. ). Fisher or Walker Acker,
Esq, attorneys for said Littlel1 I'D Ill
said cause. The contest in this case
began in the court below in suit by
requisition of 1913 head of cattle
instituted against Wells by Little
field.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Presiding Judge White having suf-
foiently recovered his health, and a
full bench being present, the follow
ing cases were decided:
Aflirmed: Texas 81 Pacific Railway
company VS.. Il. A. Anderson, from
Fannin county; Betterton. Irvine ~
Co. vs. N. s. Buck, from Dallas county;
Pablo Garcia vs. State, from Kinney
county; Charley Adams vs.. State,
from Comanch9 county; Benlto Ire
vino VS.. State, from Kinney county
w. T. Keenan, VS.. State, from Uvalde
county. In the first two cases the
opinions are written by Judge Wilson
md IN the Others oral by Judge
White.
Reversed and remand6d: John Bur-
ton VS.. State, from Mitchell county,
written opinion by Judge Hurt; Elojc
Gonzales VS.. State, from Tom Green
county, written opinion by Judge
Wilson.
Reversed and dismissed De-.
vid Zweifle and wife two cases.
from Comanche county; f. Nj. liar
old, vs.. state, from Callahan county
(the latter in oral and former in
written opinions by Judge HurD
George Allen, VS.. state, from Palo
Pinto county; written opinion by
Judge Wilson.
In Burton, VS.. state, Burton was
convicted for keeping a house for the
purpose of public prostitution. We
are not informed, say the court, by
the statement of facts in what coun-
ty the house was situated, charged to
have been kept by the defendant
There was no evidence tending to
prove that the offense was committed
in Mitchell county, the county of the
prosecution. Upon the trial no wit
ness swore that the defendant was
the keeper or proprietor of the house
The prosecution proved that the de-
PENDANT was tie proprietor or keeper
by general report and rumor. Tnls
character of testimony was not only
insufficient but clearly inadmissible
The state, VS.. Hand, 7th Iowa All
Allen, vs.. state, Texas Law Review
Vol. 3, No. 3, page 70. 1t is well set
tied that proof by general reputation
that the house is Kept for purposes OF
prostitution, is both admissible and
sufficient to establish its character as
a disorderly house. But such proof is
not competent to establish th't GER
tain person is the proprietor or keeper
of the house; because there is nC
proof of venue, and because the eyi
Iienco fails to establish the fact that
defendant was the keeper or proprie
49, - hn ind 10
versed and the cause remanded.
THE case is interesting as showing
how easily prosecuting attorneys may
fail in important prosecutiOnS.-1Se
porter.
In the Zweiful cases the conviction
We're for selling liquor on election
day. The indictments were held in
sufficient, because there was no allie
cation that the election was held IL
the precinct, village, town, or city
of defendant, or when the liquor was
sold.
In the Harold case, from Callahan
co"aty, the question is raised whether
article 992 of the Penal Code is in
force or has been repealed by the act
for the protection of the wool-grow.
ing interests of Texas, passed April
4, 1883. Held, that under well settled
rules of construction that article is
repealed in the counties in which
said act is operative, the county OF
Callahan being one of said counties
Authorities cited-Stirman VS.. State
81 Tex, 73i; Etter VS.. Missouri Pa.
cidc R'y Co., Texas Law Review, vol
2, No. %.
In the Anderson case the railroad
company was sued to recover damages
for Injuries done his person and prop
erty by a train passing just as he was
crossing the track, causing histeam to
run away and overturn his hack. He
assessed his damages at 1905, hut got
verdict and judgment for $3.50 dam
ages. The defense set up by the COM
pany was that the damages claimed
were remote and not directly or proXi-
IRately caused by the act complained
of. The complaint was that the inju-
ries received by Anderson were caus-
ed by the negligent act of appellants
servant in not ringing the bell or
blowing the whistle or giving other
warning, Held as alleged in petition
that the damages are not remote. but
are direct and proXimate. M. G. g.
Co. VS.. r, r. Co. 100 Mass 277, I'd
Thompson on Negligence p. 1079.same
case and notes; r. r.. Co. VS.. Barnett
80 Penn. st. 259: ". s. w. Con Rep
Sec. 655.
In the Allen case the information
was for procuring four fish valued at
fifty cents, by false representations
presumably based upon article 100 OF
the penal CODE Held. The facts
alleged donot constitute swindling or
any other offense denounced by our
penal code. To constitute swindling
some false representations as to exist
ing facts or past events must have
been made. Mere false promises or
false professions of intention, although
acted upon, are not sufficient. john
son vs.. State, Al Texas, 60, and other
authorities.
In the Gonzales case the conviction
IS set aside because there is no evil
dence in the record showing the venue
of the offense.
In the N. S. Buck case the defend
ant in error caused an execution to
be levied upon certain property as the
property of George Buck. The ques-
lions at issue are mainly questions OF
practice as to the proper modes OF
ocedure in the courts. Among the
ajections, however, is one that the