Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-25

THE HIGH COURTS.
syllabus OF Opinions Rendered NJ the
Austin Tern.

frcpered specially for the GAZETTE by n. r.
9aaTTkson' Reporter OF the Appellate Courts
SUPREME COURT.
Dallas 4 Wichita Halfway Va. sp,c,,er n, a,
from Dailas county. In n suit against n rau
road by n SURVIVING widow for sIarnavss r.
the killing OF her husband. the rule UPON The
puraei p' pr"o, Is thus stated: No doubt
failure oIduty ON part OF tho defendant. thc
iailnrc OF duty and the injury are shown hv
,h iep IAN and there Is nothing that I'M.
own negligence then the burden * on ,6e do.
ienuant 10 prove that the plaintiff was guilty
OF sucn neglgence. on the other hand.
wnen thc plantiis own case exposes him Ia
suspic on of negligence, then he must ciesg
on su II suspicion. No facts In this case lena
l9show contil6utcry negligence OH the part
oil the deceased. That employees OF n raii
road Mho assisted In the constfuctlon of Tie
road bed. bridge, etc, knew OF ,iclects in HE
same is no evidence that Others not in s,,ri,
ennioy nau such know, edge. Correct rule
as 70 burden OF proof In considering petition
Is laid down in a. Texas, 800. Amount OF
damages TO which appellees were entitled
was purely question for the Jury and under
facts OF THIS case 5000 is not excessive.
Abandonment of the wife by husband. she
not being In fault, does not affect her right Ia
recover damages for his oeath, so long ~ the
in,,r,a relation exists suit by parent Tor
support,upon evidence OF the parents reason
able expectation oi bench and that upou the
WI, m, ANU aoiiity OF the son 10 cJnuibulc
Willis We. Pacific hallway Company. from
HIays0n county suit by the wife for negllgc
killing o. her husband, n brakeman ON de-
itndants' road. Petition alleged that the IN.
Jury and consequent death Occur red IN the
indian territory; that the road operated un.
der a charter adopted IL this state; Tint 1t
had an oiilce 10 Grayson county; that plain.
TIN resided In Gray soi, county wheh this suit
was commences; that at the lime OF the Kill.
lng the indian territory was without law up.
piicab'e 10 any party residing beyond Its lin
! up by special demurrer that tile petition
showed ON its face that the state OF Texas had
| no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
suit. This was sustained, aud plaintiff refus
| ipg TO amend, the cause was dismissed. The
| statute con erring The right of action on Ger
/ tam survivors for the negligent killing of an
| individual, provides only for cases rising
| within this state. The demurrerwas properly
sustained. Affirmed. Willie, CD.
Eickhoftvs. Tidbu,l ct al, from Tarran
! county. In Tits case the money In hands o
the sheriff was proceeds Of property attached
| ~ appellants suit, and attachment lien had
been ioreclused for his benefit, and he wa,
| ectiued TO the property sold In part satisfac
ton of his debt, and but for the order OF cour
and the bond given, he would have received
his money ms soon as the property was sold
IT was reiuloed In the officers hands by OF
\ der of cour under the bond, for benefit q
the intervenors. to the damage OF appelle
this at the request of intervenors, where
fore II cannot be said that their bond was CO
ms ItcoTu ltils W SHOW tnt utluTt "
the claim set MP by intervenorsto the none
In the sherifl's hands. In absence of avei
ment that IL was frivolous and mate 70
delay, the presumption Is that " was based
upon some apparently reasonable claim Q
right In that event the appellants only IL
Ultimate claim for damages was such as mai
urally re ulted TO him by reason OF the mon
ey lying idle for the time intervening. bt
tween It's receipt by the sheriff and 4,
payment to hickhoii. This would be secure
by recovery Of Interest, and is the, only itei
OF damages alleged TO which he is entitled
Reversed and remanded, Willie, {. j.
Boone Vi. cobb from Fannin county. III
Is q motion 10 affirm the Judgment rendere
In the court below upon certificate. An II
spectlon OF the record discloses the fact I'll,
| the Judgment herein was rendered below
the year 1850. This certificate being sent U
to this term, three terms after the retnr
term OF the same, comes TOO late for conside
/ aiiilmance is dismissed. Willie. ca
Osborne by qua dian VS.. Gunter, FRO
Cooke county. This motion To Affirm u
I same condition rs that in the case OF llooi
! vs. Cobb, supra, except that instead OF ihr
but one term of court has elapsed since Jud
ment and return term, which, however,
. the certificate brings up no appeal bon
J which of itself is fatal. he ceralheats
: affirm is therefore dismissed. Willie, {. j.
WEIGH vs.. Warden ct al, from Colin coul
: iy. This is II motion tn affirm me luusmo
Il below upon certificate, under the rules. z
i inspection OF The records disoloses the ~
!. that the cause was tried below before n fpecl
!, Judge, and that he signed the Judgment
suah special judge. but IL totally iaiis 10 q
: close the manner of his appointment or elo
ton. An affirmative showing oil sl
appointment or selection Is Indispensable
/, the suiliclency of the proceedings VINE
y under Judgment was rendered by spec
u Judge. The certificate Is diamlss'
'xyiilIe q 4