The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-10-14

ton of the case, and the county court
did not err in so holding. Affirmed.
Rankin VS.. the State; from Cherokee
county. Appellant was convicted Of al
| aggravated assault and bat terry upua the
| person OF c. r. Davis, and his punish
inent assessed Mt a fine of $40. The
charge OF the court is full, fair and cor
rect. The charge requested by defend
ent was not the law of the case nor ap.
| plicable to the fact, the Indictment was
a model one and the evidence amply
supports the verdict. After u careful
inspection Of the record, no error APP
pears and the judgement is affirmed.
Mlssourl-PaCific railway vs.. Hatch
from HraYSon county. Suit for dam,
ages Tor killing two animals, a calf aud q
bull. Tho only question in he case is n,
10 lhe measure Of damages applied
There was evidence that sucl
animals had no market in
6rayson county, and tho plaintins
were allowed to prove the value of such
animals in the county. Held; The owl,
! dcnre Is TO the value Of th animals was
| suiiclent. 1t was conflicting as Ia
| whether there was market for such
animals IN Grayson county, and the
charge OF the court properly submitted
| he question to the jury. The charge OF
the court was substantially correct, and
| me requested charges were properly re-
fused because the charge given was full
and sufficient. Affirmed.
Missouri Pacific railway company vs..
Mrs. f.. Shcad; f-pm Nehemiah county.
After Judgment rendered in iustice'r
court, tho appellant appealed to the
| county court, In the County court, an
| police moved to dismiss the appeal, be-
cause the bond was not in double the
amount of Judgment rendered in the
court below. Appellant then offered
another bond, ut the same time asking
leave TO flo same in lieu Of the original
| appeal bond, which itself was not i'm
double the amount Of the Judgment. For
inns reason, the court refused the re-
| quest. Held: Correct. Affirmed.
IL. II. LOOney VS.. T.. NJ rilman; from
Mitchell county. Opinion by Wilson,
~. Tlllmau broughtthis suit against the
ilrm Of Il. d. Guide a Co.,, composed of
X. d. Guide, Il. H. Looncy, John Crock
EFT and Charles Lyle. 10 discontinued
his suit as to the defendants Guido and
Crockett, and asked for Judgment
against Looney and Lyle only lie al
legged in his petition that the said firm of
X. ID. Cudc& Co. were indebted to him
upon account for goods, wares and NOR
chandisc sold BY him to said firm, i'm
the sum OF S2i1 and interest, and an
neHed To his petition as part
thereof, An account showing specifically
the goods, etc, dates of sale and deliV-
! cry, prices, etc. The account, moreover,
~ against X. d. Guide individually and
alone, and is not against II. u. Guide 4
Co' us verified by an agent of Till
man IN the manner prescribed by statute
Tor the NeriticatiOn u accounts. I.oCny
and Lyle failed to appear and answer in
the SUIT ana Judgment by default was
| rendered against them for tho amount
| oi sad account, interest and costs
| rms judgment was based upon no othor
evidence than the sworn account. Loo.
ney alone proeecutcs this writ of error.
we are of the opinion that the udg-
mcnt ~ erroneous. The sworn account
| was not evidence against loouey of any
Indebtedness by him to Tillman. 1t was
an account against K. l.. Guide, and upon
Us face did not show that Loouoy was
in any way liable tor tho same. It does
| not show any transaction between
looucy and Tillman, by which the
| former is primn facic bound to the latter
for tho payment Of the Indebtedness
claimed. CIV Il W., Con. Rep, See. 75g.
II ~ of itself insufficient evidence "a
| support the allegations in plaintiffs pc.
tltlon, and was not of itself admissible
| evidence against the defendant loonev
Because the Judgment as to plaintin In
error, X. II. Looney, is without compe.
| tent evidence to support it, it is as L
! him reversed, and rs To him the cause /.
| reversed and ramaudcd for a now trial
! Reversed and romauded.