The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-04-24

'pfAiOu ny utlSO w A1SOu. hOfOAoSO
md remanded.
Bent Elan VS.. state, from Dallas |
county; opinion by Judge Hurt. 'Judg-
nent of lower court affirmed. Accus- |
ID was sentenced for five years for |
.heft of horse.
ID. b. Billiard, ct. al vs.. r. M White,
It. al, from Ellis county; opinion by
Judge Wilson. Judgment affirmed.
G. w. Cleveland, ct. al, VS.. A. j.
Anderson, from Tarrant county; opin-
on by Judge Wilson. judgment af-
irmed.
In Cleveland VS.. Anderson the latter
brought action against g. w. Slattery,
and the appellants, q. w. Cleveland
and William Cameron, a. partners to
recover fOt he price of goods, wares
and merchandise alleged to have been
sold to them for partnership purposes
Defendants, Cleveland & Cameron
denied any partnership aud filed gen.
eral demurrer, which was overruled,
and the agreement between the parties
being admitted to prove partnership,
Cleveland Il Cameron reserved bill OF
exceptions. Slattery made default:
There was verdict and judgment for
Anderson Tor less than amount claim
ed against all the defendants. Cleve-
land q Cam ron made a motion for a
new trial on grounds Of error. First,
in overruling the demurrer; Second, in
said contract as evidence of
partnership; and Third, In instructing
the jury that it constituted appellants
and said Slattery partners. This mo-
ton was overruled, and Cleveland q
Cameron appealed. The only qeestion
presented In the record is the construc-
ton of the contract between Slattery
and Cleveland s. Cameron. Slattery
being a contractor to lay sewer pipes
in Fort Worth. and Cleveland & Cam
eron having agreed to sign his boyd
in the sum of $4,000, to do the work
III accordance with contract of Stat
terry with the City of Fort Worth, and
said contract with its specifications
and bond being made part of this i'm
mediate contract between Slattery and
Cleveland s. Cameron. Slattery agreed
to allow Cleveland & Cameron one
third of the profits; and that all pay
ments by the city for the work should
be made direct to Cleveland & Cam.
eron who were to pay Slattery his two
third share, after expenses are deduct
ed. Slattery made the usual assign
ment of his interests for the purposes
of the agreement to Cleveland q Cam
eron, constituting them his attorneys
Ia fact.
The question Is did or did not the
above contract constitute Cleveland
81 Cameron partners with said Stat
terry for the purpose Of constructing
the sewers in the city of Fort Worth
or more particularly stated by the
court, did the contract between Cleve
land & Cameron and Slattery make
them partners as to third persons. an6
not whether it makes them partners
inter Sc.
Judge Wilson on the authority Of
the decision of Judge Watts in thu
case of Cathron VS., Marmaduke {;
Texas law review 15-3D, and othel
authorities, holds that where party
by agreement has a right In the entire
net profits which entitled him to def
mite share as profits, he is considered
a partner. Agreement to share losse:
is not essential. The law establishe
liability for losses as to third persons
because taking from the profits impair
the security Of creditors.
The cases of w. j. Cain, ct. al. {
cases) VS.. the state on indictments TO
gambling; and the two cases Of Ami
Wilson and Lizzie Handy VS.. tn
state. for keeping d.sorderly house
were argued yesterday. The cases ar
all from Dallas. G. F. Clint Esq, ap
pears for the state and r. e. Cowar
ESQ, for the defendants.
DISTRICT COURT.
In the district court Judge Wake
granted the injunction against the cit,
restraining interference with the ex
tension of the city railroad on Liv'
Oak street. The order is granted with
out written opinion.
In the noted case of Robbins VS.
DimmiJt previously. noticed in tn
STATESMAN, the jury failed to agre
upon verdict.
Attachments for debts were granite
against J. S. Davis for S3,259.50 L
favor of the First National bank, TO
S1,739.25 in favor of Bates, Reed (
Cooley, for $2,568.69 in favor of I
Friedman, and for $1,000 in favor o
Dave Hunter, all of this city: and TO
S1,8O6 in favor of the First Nationa
bank against J. S. Davis with S. 81
mon security on Davis note. TIL,
attachments were served late last ev
ening. The assets are more thai
sufficient to cover the above claims
but there will doubtless be other at
taching creditors.
Messrs. Woodbridge & Graham, Max
ey & Fisher and Robertson s. vii
liam are attorneys for the creditors.
COURT OF APPEALS.
In Ashlock vs.. state it was proves
that a mare which was stolen wa
running at large upon her usual rang
in Collin county, where she had beef
raised, where she had been for weef
prior to the time she was seen in de
PENDANTS possession in Dallas county
The defense relied upon was that de
PENDANT came into possession OF tn
mare in good faith that he won he
at card playing from one Hubble
From the evidence 1t appeared tina
Kelley, the owner, had turned her Out
on the range. The charge az given Il
the Jury was: IF you believefrom tn
evidence that the defendant won tn
mare from some person who claime(
| to be the owner of the animal at
game of cards, and that he believes
suc1 person to be the owner, you will
find the defendant not guilty, not
withstanding you may believe tina
such person was not In fact the owne
of the mare" 1t was insisted tina
under the facts of the case tn,
lower court should have charged fur
ther than it did, that ii defendant &C
uuired possession of the mare in an,
way from Hubbell who had stolen hel
that he (defendant) would not b,
guilty of the theft, although he nigh
have known that heanimal was stoleI
property. The charge, says Judg'
Wilson, went as far as justice de
manded, and was as fair to defendant
as it should have been. Defendant
made different statements; his last be
ing that he bought the animal OF s
stranger in the fork of Elm and PecaI
streets when defendant was seen play
ing cards. His counsel contended THU
was a reasonable explanation of his
possession, and that it deyolved upon
the state to show the falsity of it
Held: That it was sufficient for the
state to disprove defendants first
statement. and that the law does moi
require the state to disprove every ex.
PLANTATION which a defendant might
give. however reasonable, of his pos
Session of stolen property, and this
requirement extends no farther than
TO the explanation given when his pos.
session is for the first time Questioned
There Is no error to warrant rever.
col of tho iudoment which Ia therefore