Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-19
THE HIGH COURTS.
Syllabus OF Opinions Rendered at the
Austin Term.
Prepared specially for TIN GAzErrE by \.
7. jackson, Reporter of the Appellate
Courts OF Texas

Z. jackson, Reporter OF the Appellate
SUPREME COURT.
Franks ct al. vs.. Chapman ct al,
from Atascosa county. The county
court Is the proper court In which TO
contest the validity Of a paper admit
ted to probate as the will OF a deceased |
person. Such a proceeding is no less a |
probate proceeding than Is one to have |
a paper probated rs will, save In the |
one respect given by the constitution. |
The district court has no original pro-
bate Jurisdiction. Judgments OF courts
of general Jurisdiction are final and
conclusive of the questions decided.
Jurisdiction of subject matter and per-
sons to be bound having been acquired,
unless the same be set aside by some
revisory proceeding allowed by law;
hut IL does not follow that such re-
visory proceeding must he pros
ecuted In some tribunal exercising
strictly appellate jurisdiction over the
Judgment court In absence of
constitutional prohibition the lcgis-
lature had power to provide, at least
as to probate cases, that court may
revise its own Judgment for proper
cause, In such mode as not to conflict
with settled constitutional restrictions.
1t was the Intention of the legislature
to give tn persons interested In will u
remedy ~ whicn they couiu contest
its vahuity, either vr WANT vi tne
requirements 10 clo'he tne propate
court Win necessary powers OF ior
want OF me essentials OF VIII. fro-
oate courts Vt 'nis s.s.e navc "u,,iori,y
70 revoke the PROBATE OF wills which
they nave prooateo; De'nurter was
Improperly SUSTAINED ana 1ne peution
lnproperiy uis,iiNseu. ~, nuer ne
!ac,s througn whlvn 'n,s SUI. mas sen.
70 the district court Una. eo9r. ., nov
mas over III origiha' proua,e lurisuic-
uoh. reversed ana reniahueo' stay
ION, ..
bruhef bros. VS.. otrong,uoni l.a'iln,
county. ~ Is u geneln, ru.e MA. .u'
evidence III regard 10 conversations De-
tween parties oeiore reHua,ng an "sr o
ment 10 writing, whicn may nave
resulted IN written contract. ciear
IN us terms, is inauniiss,oie lor the
purpose OF giving 10 u written cohtract
meaning other IMAM tha, conveyed
ny tne language OF Tue wr,uhs. Wheh
irauu, acciuent OF hi's.ake mas pre-
vented tne use oil sucii language as
was intended 10 convey we rear Iiean'
ing OF the parties, IL may pe SHOWN.
ihere is no pretehse tna1l .he contrac'
IN inns case does NOT reprcscn. .he III
tentlon OF the parties, 'u. ~ 10 cor
tended tnat the agreement Was hot y
be operative unless appeiiaht gave
appeiiee sucn inloruiation US Woui
ENABLE MN 10 puy anu oeh'er ca.ei'
Ut price anu expense w .eanne
pfoltol one 1oi,ar per neau, ou.oi pi,o'
when appellants aSreeu W iay' pu
sucii Is not tiie iegai e,iec. y. sne eon
trac,, hppe,lee agreeu ~ ee Guy, Wv
cattle apsoiuteiy, puU Oh, eiie 'Sce VI w
INSTRUMENT u appears .hav IL nv oo s
not make uhder cohtra,t price Ms
named, lne proho haIiisu' ,nen WIN
OUT releience w lis plo,e W ~ ~
was 70 oei,Ver .ne AVN as ~ rra VIC az,
nahoeu price ,no,iieui Ane as'eonis ~
itseii preciuues ,ne .ue,. W hep,vs S ~,
tions ny appcIian.s w'lun w r a.
tehuea OF uhuerstoou W NC we 'oun ".
tioh OF the cohtrac., uuu nenou ~
COURT erreu III ovelru''ns uei n,, .ua
whlch Went 10 SO inuGn vi .ne ansMe
as sougnt 10 avo,n .aoin.y , on Wv
erouuu 'nas appu.a 81" nm NJ 60 80 ',
appeilee lniorina.ioii n"iieu. ny ia Nv
that upon Tue Wriihp appeiian's re-
iuseu 70 gunIal,e1 .ne pipn' w ~
rom .,e iiiotniae'o III. 20 WI s;.' ,,o
is conclusive tn'e tpe Pal',es uiu Nv
rely upon .he iiio.iiiaVioii W We s,NG, =,
II, as agreed, thht appsi,1e mas ~
formed before he executed the wri.inE
me appellants Wouiu hVt sua'a',e ,
the profits, he maue tne coh ap n, III
peril. For rule, see ~ le@', 90. Iher
were no representations such AZ Wou.'
exclude the appeiiants. Juughel
should have been rendered ior the ~
pellants for $500, interest. etc., !
hands OF appellee, ana lor sl'opf, /,
terest, etc, ana LOT ialu,e " ueil'
s34 head of cattle contracted Tor, an
such Judgment Is SO rendered; ~
versed and rendered. otayton, j.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Harvey Lee vs. State, from Caiiaha
county. The conviction IN this en-
was for permitting gaming ON III
premises of the accused. The onl
question was as to the correctness
the charge on the question OF the Gee
to the premises. No objection WI
made TO the deed when offered IN ev
dence as shown by bill OF exception
1t was the province OF me court 10 co
strue the deeds and determine the
effect. The instruction was 10 60
slider the last deed alone. Held, th
u the court charged correctly. Ailirme
e. Sherrod vs.. State from Brown cou
ty. The conviction in this case W
for an aggravated assault and bate
II on one j. L. Wilson. To the poir
or presented to this court and Insist
. a nnon as error no bills of except,