The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-29

posi Of the CON M sslon OF appeals adop'o1
in o far that it holds that deceased came
20 his death through the neplleenoe OF the
railway company ana mat ,he s'ps",ss
cover. We think, hoveyer, that ihe sun
allowed by the jury 81 300 was clearly tx
evidence. We are always reluctant
20 disturb verdict, because o. the
large amount OF damages found,
snd nave refused 10 interfere IA some cases,
when 81 our opinion the iury have been
| somewhat tXtravAgant IN ihelr hndWg, "
no improper influences have been bTonght
10 bear upon them. hut IN tbs present
case the damages are 30 DIFFICULTY dispro'
p0rtloned, TO the amount OF the loss
| proved, a. 20 lead 10 the conclusion lhat
The language used bv eppellee's counsel la
his nddres, 10 the Jury must have had
some ~ tuence upon their verdict FOR this
reason We think the judgment should be
! 70 yersed aud the cause Iemanded, and IL 10
accordingly 30 ordered Z" Willie, Q.
COURT or APPEALs.
Thrush, ct al, vs., th- state from hoou
county. Opinion by White, y. !. Where
a reoogniz .nce Il taken In open court 10
Will be presumed tina. the penal sum
named in the recognizance was the sum
fixed by the court, whether such statement
~ explicitly made or not, in the recogpi
zsIcs itself. Theft OF bacon OF the value
OF s27 90 10 an offence against thu laws OF
this state. The time and place OF appesr
snce named in the bond IL, "shali well and
truly make his appearance before tho hon
orADie district court In and for Hood cour-
~, row IN sos ion Mt the courthouse there
OF, In the town OF Granbury, and there re-
main IRON day TO day, etc." Held; SUM-
cieHt. Affirmed.
". Opinion by Wilson, ]. Where tho bail
bond Is executed before Indictment found,
the rule IL that the bond IL not vitisted be-
| cause IL falls TO name the precise otisnge OF
! which the principal therein was subse.
quently indictment. IL is sufficient II 1t
| name some oflense against the law OF the
state. Where he otiense named IL theft OF
an mails" Held sufficient. WneD the bont
| Is conditioned that the accused shall be
and appear before the honorable distr ct
court on the first day OF the next term
thereof TO be begun aud holden nj the court
house Ia Garlic Springs, In said county, on
etc aud there is no county named In the
BOND, but the accused was arrested by
vifiuc of warrant issued by y II
swseicr, J. Z. Pr. No. -. l ID. g." Held:
lneuiilci.nt. IL cannot be conjeotured
that ID. G. county includes Dimmit county
Nor can We make judicial notice that
Garlic SPRINGS are IN Dlmmit Coupty
Because tho lien Dond is iusulli cieut the
Judgment is reversed and the cause dis
mtssed.
Misgsur, Pacific Railway vs. Hewitt; from
Dallns county. On motion % effirm on
certificate. Tho trauecr pt made on tx
uibit 10 the motion contains The proper
papers IN due and perfect form; the caption,
! iral Judgment, notice OF appeal given,
Hppesl bond, and certificate OF the cloik As
required by the Statute sid rules OF this
Court and the motion IL granted. All rmed.
Martin 1T Al. Va. the State; from Erath
oauuty. Opinion by Wilson !. Oae d.
was convicted OF sgirdling, under an IN
! die meut charging him with theft. Upon
apl,ai 10 this curt he entered into rscogDi'
z,nce with appellants as his sureties con
diiioned to sppeai before the district court
| of Eraih county and abide the judgment Of
his court IN sid csse. This court affirm.
ing that Judgment, and ID. failing to APP
pear. the recognizance was forfeited and ap'
pe!lant ordered TO show causs, e,c Appel
ian, answered the.seine facia AZ by general
denisl above. Upon trial the Slate, over
obi e tiont, read the indictment charging
ID. with THEFT and his conviction theroun-
der for swlndling, Held: Not error. II
was not necessary for the State 10 read these
papsrs In evidence, II was only necessary
ior the State to show the recognize tnce and
| the Judgment nisi declaring II forfeited.
| Held: AS the Judgment OF afhrmsnce In DIS
case is the law At the case, there 10 no
error in the court permitting the indie
|
sidss defendant aud his suretles In pro-
cseding upon forfeited bail bond or recogni-
| znnce cannot be permitted to inquire into
the validity OF the indictment or tns judge
ment OF conviction, nor can the sursties be
heard to question the guilt OF thsir princi'
'R Raw We. the state; from Parker county.
Opipion by White, p. J. recognizance
| q conditioned that defendant shall well and
truiy mi AXE his personsl appearance before
the honorable district court OF
Parker county, Texas, now In session
a. the courthouse thereof In the
town of Wea,herfotd and here remain from
day to day" etc., held to be a strict com
pllapce with Art. $50. sub.tiv. 4, Q. @. +.
| Where at one term of the court Judgment
was rendered against the principal and In
favor of another, aud this Judgment Is set
aside, and at the mex, term the death OF che
surety in whose favor tn" Judgment De-
| fore was rendered 10 suggested and the case
A, to him is dismisscd. Held: /, totre iacias
| .ses this can be done, and even where enc
surety had not bseo served the c ,se may be
discussed az to him and judgment taken
ega,ns, the Others. Affirmed.
Collins VS. the State; from Callahan
county. Opinion BY White, p. J. Upon
former appeal this case wa, re-
ysrsrd because tbs Judgment nisi upon
witch this Judgment ~ osssd Was
not In conformity with the law. az Ct
App. 1856 Upon this trial new citations
were received. and the district attorney
| filed notion 10 award the original udg-
msnt voice by inserting the words pre-
scribed bs Ait Al. o. q. L. Appellant &C.
cpp,ed service OF this motion, but no ser
vice was had on the principal. Appellant
| q ,jscted to this motion. First. said mo
| non ism the nature rfa writ o' errt r corans
mob Tor the correction OF matters OF feet IN
the Judgment while IL appears from the
facs o: said motion that the correcuon or
amendment sought to be made ~ matter
of law and this court has no jurisdiction 10
correct at y subsf q uent time The Judicial err
| rors OF "A former time, but the proper
| remedy for such corrrc,
ton IL a revisory or appellate tribunal"
second. because SAID motion had not been
| served Oh the principal obliSor IN
the hail bond. and he has no notice OF ~"
Third, Because the court of appeals
mad decided that this very judgment nisi
| which tho motion seeks to amend 10 in-
valid. null aud void, and therefore, there
liz now no such valid and legal Judgment
nisi IN this case as this cour. can amend or
tions are presented. First, Could Judgment
be arr ended as done? Second. II 90, could
such amendment BE- made without notios
| TO toe princiai obligor In the bond. Held;
| Under the rule laid down In LAvans vs.
March Banks e. Teza, Law. Re-
ments, q Ed Sec. IL; that
the appeal from the justices TO the
county court gee properly dismissed and
this iurt has no jurisdiction OF the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
RIevins VS.. the State; from Brown c,un'
Nv. Conviction for theft Of Q horse for
ybich a punishment OF Eve years impris-
onment in The peni.entisry was imposed.
The motion for continuance was properly
ove,ruied as in REV of the evidence sdduc.
cd. wbic was amply suficieat 10 support
n. verdict. the desired testimony was not
probs bIy true. The chugs Of the court VS.