The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-02-02

An sfiidsvit was made under article lt3s
Revised Statutes, aud died with the clerk
when thu suit was brought. The clerk then
placed the case on the Jury docket and no
question being raised by any one ~ TO ~
right To be there, II 90 remained until
the case was called Tor trial. Tns
The list was handed to each party Ia
select the jury when Tor the tirst time do
iondant onjeoted 10 the trial oi the case by
Jury, The court sustained the objection
aud held error, The court should have
permitted the plaintin 10 amend the afide'
VII 80 Ms 20 correspond with the require
ments OF article 30d7, as u WAS Intended, in'
asmuuh a. the Gaze hHd proceeded ~ ihr M
u had aud could la no way have preIudlced
the defendants rights. Reversed and re-
mAnded,
Stark ut al va Burr, from Orange county,
Opinion by Stayton, /. This care vas be.
lore this court ones before, 90 Texas, 40
The petition now IN respect TO the material
allegations as TO the subject matter aud the
pa-lies In the same MS then, and the hold
ings there announced therein ara again
here held. and the case being In material
aspects different the ruling there held II
again announced. Affirmed.
Allen vs. MordsOn ~ nl; from Houston
county. Opinion by West The pay.
ment OF taxes In order to supp III plea OF
limitations may be proven by Compliant
circumstantinl evidence Just M any other
| fact The proof In the present case sustains
the ipding oi the court below on this point,
and ~ that Ia the main issue the Judgment
~ affirmed.
couRT on kPrEALs
Thomas vs. the state, from Bell county,
| Conviction theft, from the person, 81 an
oyercoat and several handkerchiets, What
purporis TO be u sta cement OF facts cannot
L l.. Al
the court below. The charge OF the court
not being excepted to nor made aground
OF the motion Tor new trial, cannot oe no
tced now. ~ there is no fundamental error
therein. Affirmed.
Huns w, tho state from Washington
county. While the charge Ol the court on
self defence failed 10 instruct
the jury ga ~ the rea5puaple
that his wife vas Ia danger OF her. HE or
s.rions bodily harm NJ the hands OF the de-
ceased, yet ~ tue error was not expected io
Ht the time, nor mHde a prou1d ct the
motion for rev trial nod not o-lng fun
dtmeutul errorit cannot b. noticed. Al
Calm Va. Salinas from Web county.
o liui1n by Hurt J. Wperc 4 sued j for
"a balance due Tor me rent oiH certain odnd'
log aud B answered under oath AtInlttlu
part of the account Tor rpst but pleaded
an offset ofhn tlemiI'h account Tor gouu',
wares and merchandise sold sud delivered A.,
aud the couri admitted evidence 20 dis
prove this uccOunt without an affidavit de
nyiug it, ju-tucss, held error. IA BIS PEE
iition states that plaiutih being Ht varloua
times DESTROYS OF obtaining from defendant
divers sums oinont ard nmOuntsol goods,
wares anu M 1rchaudise, did not demand
payment of sa rents and advances, but AL.
low ed said account for rents and sums OF
money, value OF goods, wares and mer'
chandise to continue ~ an open account
IL comes within the meaning of the word
account used In article =, 266 revised statues.
Il served and remauded.
Brown VS.. Engle from Fay.
cite ' county. Opinion by Hurt, j.
Suit for rent. In which the LANDLORD
sued out distress wrrrant, and had
II levied upon Ger am cottot: Inc
Testimony fhowed that he did not
rent the premises to defendant but sold it
to him for 500. He never demanded rent
hut Interest on tis money" That he
took the place back from Blown because
he could not pay for it. That they had II
settlement in which it WAS agreed that
Brown should he released iron his pnr.
chase and that En2le ould have l,4OO
hounds OF cotton belonging To Brown.
Bnt upou hearing tina Blown was shipping
oil this cotton this suit wac brought
Held: The evidence does not support the
verdict and the judgment is reversed and
remhnded.
Lesl vs.. Woodhouse, from Webb county
Opinion ny Wilson, j. La cases OF asnii
upon a promissoTy note, where the defend
ant RI 8 DIES out OF the state AID the service
is had out OF the state and judgment by de-
fault is taken, defendant not appearing,
IL must appear that the notice aad ne sery'
ice thereof have been made In strict com.
planes with the requirements oi
the statute, not only "a TO mat.
ters of Substance but also IT form Where
the petition states The notice was filed July
81, 1888, when in fact said petition WAS iled
July "a, 1888, and IL further appears that
| the notice 5 not attssted by the seal OF the
court, Held. The notice does not support
the jGdgment.by default. Reversed and re-
IN anded.
Alien vs.. Plerson, from Falls county
Opinion by Watts, ]. Adopted. 1: Where
| inadequacy OF price unattended by fraud,
or irregulsrity producing the same, Will not
authorize the aDnulling OF q snerih's sale
2, Where the price is grossly inadequate,
slight additional facts showing fraud :,
ir,eg uisrity, or other circumstances cal
culated to prevent the property from
bringing something like its reasonable
value might be sufficient to avoid the sale:
In law the term GROSS inadvquacy. vi
price is used to designate such consider
alton as no fair minded person would oiler
for the property. Revtr'ed and demanded,
eoe-