Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-25
THE HIGH COURTS.
Synopsis of Decisions Rendered at the
Austin Term.
Special 10 the Gazette.
COURT OLE APpEALS.

COURT OF APPEALS.
AUSTIN, April 2l.-1he second as
signment was on first call in both |
courts to-day. In the court of appeals |
the proceedings were rs follows: Priest |
ct al. w. Best, from Dallas. Affirmed |
on certificate.
The following are set for hearing on
Saturday neXt:-Greenwood vs. State,
from Caldwell; International 81 Great
Nor hern Railroad vs.. Best, from Hays;
Grady VS.. Ragan, from Caldwell;
Means VS.. State, from Caldwell;
Haynes VS.. Gray, from Hayes.
The following were set for hearing
on Wednesday DeXt:-Martinez VS.
State, from Bexar; Darrell vs.. State,
from Guadalupr.
The following were submit
ted:-Ray va. State, from
Parker, on briefs for both;
Thompson VS.. State--from Lee, on
briefs for both; Anderson VS.. State
from Caldwell, on briefs and argument
| for both; Matkinson VS.. State from
! Travis, on briefs for State; Chapman
VS.. State from Atascosa, on briefs for
both; Fentriss ct al. VS.. State from
BeXar, on briefs for both; Telegraph
Company VS.. Fork from Comal, on
briefs for appellant; L, IL G.. n. Railway
VS.. Goldstein from Williamson, on
briefs for both; Same vs. Saules, on
briefs for plaintiff in error; Robinson
VS.. Robertson from Williamson, on
briefs for both; Brockman VIZ. State
from Karpes, on briefs for both Gam
vs.. Shaw & Son from Williamson, OF
brief for appellant; international
Great Northern Railway vs.. Schmid
from Hays, on briefs for both Wi
liams vs. Bentnagle from Guadalupe
on briefs for both Sanford VS. Stat,
from Bexar, On briefs for both Cara
vs. State from Bexar, on briefs fol-
, both; Raddy VS.. State from Bexar, o,
briefs and argument for both; Well
VS.. State from BeXar, on briefs 70
state; Howell VS.. State from BeXar
= Hernandez vs.. State from BeXar, OF
briefs for state; international d Grea
a Northern Railway VS.. Donaldson iron
Hays, on briefs for appellant.
e SUPREME COURT.
n In the supreme court the followinI
s. motions to dismiss appeal We're sus
g tnined -Elkins W. BIller ct al. from
o Wilson; johnson vs.. Haltomal from
@ Guadalupe.
y The following We're the submission
d Merth VS.. Ioho from Travis, o,
briefs for both; City Water Compan
vs. White from Travis, on briefs f
Of both; Austin City VS.. Johns froI
~ Travis, on briefs for both; Franks VI
le Chapman from Atascosa, on brief fo
ID appellant; Weiss VS.. Davis from wi
or Hanson, on brief FOR appellant: Bra,
a ford VS.. Taylor from Williamson, O
is briefs for both; international
ar Great Northern Railway vs. GRAY,
A. from BeXar. on briefs (,
~ both; Same VS.. Nicholson from Bexa
". on briefs for both; Mahan VS.. VOL
rs from Williamson, on briefs and arg,
is ments for both; Hector vs.. Gray froI
n Guadalupe, on briefs for appellan
d. Mays vs.. Houston from Wilson, O
nd briefs and argument for both; Newtt
les ys. Newton from Wilson. on briefs {,
,er both; NJ. X. IL 4. Ry. vs.. Mayfel
he from Bexar, ON briefs for both; |.
at Il. N. Ry. vs.. Brett from Bexar, ,
81 briefs for both; Stringer vs. Swensc
m from Travis, on briefs for boil
ed Thompson and Wife vs.. Heron fro
,p- Guadalupe, on briefs for bot
Ith Burton VS.. Galveston, Houst,
ess and San 4..ntonio railway from Bex,
u on briefs for bltn; Ochea VS.. Gar
AN from Bexar, on briefs for both Geil
VS.. Childress from Bexar on briefs 1
,is. both Mayes vs.. Jones from Wisc
IT, on briefs for plaintiff i'm error.
me Judge White of the court of appe,
to suffered relapse of his recent sic
ness last night and Is to-day quite Il
well.