Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-09
THE HIGH COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

tilt > IiS0tS W IT,
cover against the estate Of Prince, and
the suillciency of the petition, see
former reports Of this case in 3S Tex.
2sG, and so Tex, 320, Art. 37lS, Pasch
Dig, authorized party In a case like
this 10 rely upon certified copies OF
notes lilcd In suits in other courts OF
this state, in the place of originals for
the purpose of authorization and pre-
sentation to the administrator. Ii was
not error to receive in evidence the.
notes executed by Z. d Z. and the copy
of the Judgment to which they were
attached. The judge sitting without
ajuly will discriminate between com.
petent and Incompetent evidence, and
though incompetent evidence may
have been heard, his finding, II there
be competent evidence to sustain Il,
will not be molested. Objection To
evidence offered and received in this
case Ia not sustained by the record. 1t
Is error to exclude testimony in sun.
port of plea merely defective, aud
liable TO be held bad on exception. Az.
iirmed. Walker, 2. j. Adopted.
Hutchings ct al. vs.. Jordan ct al,
from Somervell county. Parties TO q
deed are bound 10y its rentals; these
rentals operate as an cstoppel working
upon their interest in the land, and
/ 'AhNaih i'tiNitS III lTlNlDN
in estate, and privies in law. Rentals
IN deed will not operate In favor of
or against strangers, but only have
that effect rs between the parties and
prlNies. such estoppels arise only In
suits upon the deed, or suits growing
out OF the transaction in which IL Is
! given, and not In collateral cOntro-
! versles between the parties, The
| wite's right to the homestead Is MS alb
solute ny that of the husband and in
TINS respect she IL a privy neither In
blood, estate or law, to his conveyances
OF part of the same. That the court
gave requested charge with modf-
cation which in no way affected the
meaning, is not errortob be entertained.
The evidence sustains the verdict
Watts, j. Adopted.
Jelgens and Wife vs.. Schiele. from
Harris county.-The contest Ia this
case being the interest in lots claimed
by each, 1T WAS not error to admit in ev-
idenee the proceedings in two previous
suits between thesame parties. Where
there is any defense TO an action OF tres-
pass TO try titlegrowing out of the wife's
homestead right, which would have
defeat the action, then the wife
would oe a necessary party defendant.
Not so III the previous case. If the
wife bad, in the last of those cases. APP
peared and pleaded and proved the
facts as TO her homestead which she
mas done in this, or any other state Of
facts appropriate TO the CONTROVERSY be-
tween appellee aud her husband, they
would not have awaited as bar To
plaintiffs demand "To any proceed
ing in which the right OF homestead Is
not available, as defense
1t Is obvious hat the wife is not, on nc.
count of the locus in quo con
stitutes the homestead of The
llamtiy, necessary psrty.p
There was not IN this case. however
any fact which could have lei in DE
homestead rights of the wife as n de
Tense to the plaintiffs claim. The
only question between the parties in
TINS case was whether or not s IS deed
TO j. was obtained by fraud. That an
swered IN The affirmative, no homes
stead right OF the wiG could prevent
.he plaintiffs recovery. Decided IN
The negative, Judgment must neccssa-
rily go for the defendant whether the
property was II homestead or not
nder the probate law OF 1918, in force
u me dates OF the deaths of appeIlee's
ather and mother, tie homestead
ould be partitioned when the estate
vas solvent, and such was the case i'm
his instance for auglt that appears to
he contrary. Affirmed. Willie, c. j.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Perry Hunt VS.. the State from
Washington county. The conviction
! this case was for Inanslauahter
pom an indictment for murder. The
Iestion raised upon the ruling of the
'uTt upon the application for n con-
nuation Is eliminated from the case
7 the failure TO save exceptions To The
ling and further 10y the subsequent
'pearance Of the alleged absent Wit
'sses. Objection is urged to the
large of the court. But 10 does moi
pear to have been excepted TO on the
ial, az required lay the rules of prac-
'e. Besides the errors, If any, were
red by the court giving the additional
structions asked. At all events no
ch error Is apparent so far calciila-
l to injnre the rights OF the appeIl-
IL rs that, In the absence of ofiec-
ms, would authorize revision of the
ignent. Affirmed
Hardness Va. the state. three ooses
nm ltefngio county. The appeals IN
81 OF the three cases are prosecuted
m penalties imposed by the court
low ior contempt. The motions of
assistant encouragement to dis
SO are based upon the grounds, first.
- Ni,W hVt btIiB u remedy
)vlded by law In such eases. this
irt cannot hereunder acquire iuris-
zion; second, The writ OF error bond
Ps not describe the Judgment, nor
Nv for what process, the failure TO
'cntc which, the plaintiff In error
$ lincd; IL does not appear from apy
tol 'ne record what particular case
ought To be revised; no assignment
errors was filed with the bond NJ
uired by rule 81, and no briefs were
q IN The court below. Held. flint
motions are well taken and must
vail Appeals dismissed.
!. IL. Martin VI. State, from Lam
as county. The conviction In this
0 was for burglary, with a term of
years assessed as tile penalty.
wing Appended and RECONSTRUCTED
appeal, the appellant, through lis
'rney, iiies a motion TO withdraw
appeal or Ia lieu thereof, that III he
Missed. The motion Is supple
nted ny The Affidavit Of the appei-
~ person, subscribed 10 before the
rict clerk, verifying the motion aA
own net. Under the circumstances
motion TO disniiss the appeal Is
aimed Appeal dismissed.
coGRr or APPEALS.
alyeston, March s'-The court Of
IL al l. -.