Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-20

this; Where two parties have mad =
tract winch one has broken the , 49, con-
covcraoie ny the other party sbo,,S ',, 'sges re
as nay ,ai.,y and reasonably be- con, ny tuch
cnhc' arising naturally, i.c. acct,f,,s,.- uertd
usual course of things from s,,ch hs u,ng 70 the
or bucn ~ may reasonably DO .Sn itelf
nave oe cen 10 ihe con,emplation Of bo,S ~ 70
liz result OF ahe hr .e eon,ract as the proSs
damages clalmcd In the petiiIon H. unat the
are not recoverable under liza 49,, 'nis ca .
wh where ,ne demurrer was properly s'a, .ra
thineu. ~ might be otherwise haa ~ rus-
ton alleged the injury 10 h.sus 'ne p-ti.
shortly after he breach, but In tb,s esuitei
time Is alleged. Affirmed. Wilson I Ease no
,,h liz, vs. sule, rom Greyson county. This
battery, comprehends three counts 'a@'. mn AND
defendant, an adult mnle, commit,.ai nht
sault upon female. .. That defenJan,u ~
mn assault :, apon a nnn strength, committed
defendant went into prlvfte L,r y" Ant
committed the ofiense The first cs,,,, usc anu
sustained by the evidence. because nm !, sd mo,
person being one l." enty-one years o,d ~,
mere belief OF the prosecuting wi,rs ~,u' IN!
Defendant had attained that age IA o,n
land In any event Insufficient by al roo, ,s,.s
t,veeviaence that he had not. The secon,
count involves the dennition OF The farm
decrepit.' dectepit person. in the n,ss :, :,
Ing of our statute, Is one who In disab,ad :,
capable or incompetent, from either physca
o osn n nr o,,n weaHness whether produced b,
I
render the individual comparatively bc,n,oss
IN conflict with one possessed Of ord,nnr,
~ ength. The evidence falls 10 show III
| injured party decrepit within the mean,r " y
| the terfl rs thus defined The third cou.s, 4
! not sustained land was properly with II,
from the jury because II was shown ,hnt ~
defendant was an inmate of the house nm
sell. Reversed and reminded. Wilson. i. :
| snort VS.. State. from Collin county. Fro,
| n Judgment final on u bail-boi d. the princ
pal ana suretics thereon, with three oths
arties on their appeal bond, appealed irol
| the Justices to the county court, whe, q IND,
ment against the same parties was iendere,
but no judgment taken against The sureti,
on the appea. bond. From this Judgment m
principal atd sureties on the bail bond, viii
| same sureties on appeal bond, appeal 10 In
| court. Held, that The final Judgment agai,
| the surcties ON the appeal bond to the count
| court vas not essential TO give this con
| jurisdictions: further, no Judgment beir
| rendered against the sureties on the anne
bond TO the county cour', they were comp
tent suret'es on the appeal bond from m,
court TO this. Molion % dismiss override
| Hurt.
Rush VS.. State, from Dallas county. II
battery upon his wife, and the penal
awarded the defendant was fine OF $50 ri
| motion for continuance was properly owe
ruled, since IL appears that the purpose of n
| desired testimony was to impeach witness
| and moreover, IL was Obtained from W
nesses present Again, IL appears, from Il
evidence a6duced, that the desired testimoi
was probably not true. The evidence W
abundant to prove the inflction by the d
PENDANT OF severe bruises upon the person
his wife. The Judgment is affirmed.