The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-03-06
THE COURTS.
SUPREME SQUIRT.

EAsterH0Od VS.. NeWby, rom Johnson
county; the parties In this cause pending
the disposition OF this case on the report OF
the commissioners OF appeals, haylag file!
a written agreement that the same may no
reversed and rendered in favor Of appel
liant, at his cost, IL Is ordered that thar dii-
position be made OF the cause. Reversed
aad rendered.
Ayers ct u! VS.. Shackey, from Washing
ton county; Delany, j Adopted. Tbs
only question in this case Is. whether OF
not there was an abandonment OF the
h mestead. Appellees acquired the prop
erty es homestead some time in 1870,
lived upon It until 1876, when they made
contract TO have erected three store houses
on IL, which we're completed lase IN
the year. The property was a part
of city lot and tronted sixty
feet on one street and ninety feet
en- another. The three store.houses
erected occupied the entire front Of one
street, AMI all except thirty feet on the
other, which "trip run back sixty feet. The
store-house far,hsst from the front OF The
smsll lot, was sold after completion. The
dwelling and improvements on the lot
were removed before these store-houses
we've erected. Daring the erection OF these
store. houses appellees rented houss in
town for short while, after which they
lived with the wife's relation in the coun-
try. They stated their purpose WAS to
rent these store houses until they could Oh
tain money enough to erect dwelling on
the lot. Upon these facts the court charged
the Jury in effect: That when property
once becomes homestead, DO lsng - IL -
remains the husband cannot, by building
houses thereon, 30 separate q portion Of IL
as v subject 1t TO force sale. Held; Efrsn.
cons, not being applicablets the facts. Re-
versed and remasded.
Young VS.. Young, from Bell county;
Walker, D. !. Adopted. This is suit for
divorce, which is based upon the sole
gro nd that the defendant had been con-
yictsd of felony his vile not appearing
against him, and had served his term In the
penitentisry. Defendant plsad that before
the amended petition was filed his sentence
was COMMITTED by TIE governor, which
being q pardon under the law was not
ground for divorce Held: The legal coDss-
qusnce of a Communication o! sentence OF the
convict by the governor is not equivalent
TO pardon of tho offsnse so far as relating
to the snbject Of divorce under our law.
Reversed and remsnded
Perry ct al. VS.. Woodson ct al. from Harris
county; Watts /. Adopted. There being no
pretencs tina. Woodson paid purchase
money for the hundred acre tract Of lgnd
conveyed to Davis, the land was burdsnsd
with the amount Of the unpaid purchase
given to Woodson for the purchase money
OF the two hundred and sixty acre tract
conveyed by Davis to Mrs. WoodsoD. The
un paid balance due Mrs. Perry is part Of
the consideration by Woodson for the two
hundred and sixty acre tract OF land
therefor, Just the same as il the note had
been given directly TO Dsvl. and trans
ierred by him to Mrs. Perry
in the place o. IT, H. IRA fras
81 200 for the property and understood
that to be the price asked, but would only
paw one thousand, because the title was
supposed to be detective, and the agent and
purchaser sfterward agreed upon ons thous-
and % the price and received the deed
with fifteen hundred dollars a. the con-
sidsrstion recited, and his name was To-
serted therein as the grantee and the wife
did not consent or know Of tnis being dsns,
aud refused to receive any part Of the pur-
chase msnsy. Held: She was enttIe to 10
cover the property from the purchaser.
Under the facts recited no equities exist in
favor Of the purchaser, as against the wife,
which would allow him to hold the land 4,
or demand return of the purchase monsv,
nor can he demand pay for the improve.
ments placed thereon, he not being An in
nocent purchaser. Reversed and rendered
in favor OF appellant.
Newman ct 81. vs.. Dsdson, from Washing
ton countv; Willie, G. J. While the ser.
vice on one of defendants was defective, 1t
was subsequently cured by the valid SER
vice on the other, who appeared and as at,
totney OF record for both parties, accepted
service of interrogatories flied and crossed
them. Evidence of anyone is admissible
10 prove statements of party relative to
his health aud physical condition, when
such is a matter OF inquiry, but statement
! IS 10 who inflicted the wound, are hear say
and inadmissable. Objections 10 jurors
summoned come too late after the verdict
is rendered, they must be made before the
trial commences. A charge enumerating
facts. which II proven In evidence may be
taken into cops Iteration in making an esti..
mate OF damages are not on the weight OF
evidence. Affirmed.
Watson ct al, vs.. the state, q rel; Jow.
ers, from Anderson county, Willie c. ]. In
an action in the nature of quo warranto,
weighing produce, etc, where appellants
laid no claim to the Office of public weigh
els, but only weighed such produce, etc., as
they were requested to do by the owners
thereof, in private capacity, snd were
only exercising such acts a. were necessary
for them /, doing such weighing. Hold:
A Judgment ordering appellants scales re-
moved from the railroad platform, and pro
hibiting their further weighing, was errone.
GUS. (See this case In full 3 Texas Law Re-
view 1907 Judgment reversed and rend-
cred for appellant.