The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-05-01

ffd u 0Aiei On Tlnf1flY, Dtolmi0f ljihi
ias1 The hand describes ths lad On eni A.
ths rendered ~ the ibih Gay oi Dicemte
a. n lssI and hssfloF mistress fqin thsl
daie. fhia u fatsl variance iDf shl1h ihe
appesl must b., aud 10 dismissed.
Howard ". Mo1fa Of All from oaYsoil
oouniy IN tuls csse, TIERS are no bill N
0x0sftl0. which ntn bo considered bV tsia
court The bills oi sxosptlOss IN the 20.
cord arc incorporated In the Htslsmsut ~
isois, which was til-d after the adjourn
msnt OF court, sld thcg cannot thsfsioie
be considered, q Toxss L,y ReNsv, o.
idsm 0sl In mo Ahaence ~ auen bills OF
exception, ihsre 10 no error apparent OF To-
cord and the judgment II Ell rmsd.
Hill W. tha sAt-i from liowia county,
| Appellant was convicted OF surder 10 toe
second degres. for the murder of Sslio
Fort, and ssnienoed 10 i've years. impr.on'
meIt As presented To va by the record
thsrs Ia co error apparent. Tho evidence
simply supports the verdict aud Judgment.
/ Tue cnaTga - tho court and tbs inuic,-
ment are both good aud sufficient, and the
judgment IL atiiImsd.
R1lin w.. the \ ate; from Fannin onupty.
Appellant vas convicted OF the mAnslsngh.
tor OF Thomas Pratt and his punishment
assessed at three yesTe Imprisonment. The
record brought 70 this court con aims no
OIL OF exceptions, and tho evidence being
30 III Client and no fundamental error appenr-
| Ing OF record, the judgment II affirmed.
Fondfen vs.. tho ftste; mo. 29le) from
Ellis county. 10 this case tbs appellant
was convicted OF an aggravated a,ssult and
battery, committed with stirk on ore j.
Il. Loak, and iine OF S25 assessed. Tnera
was no exceptions taken Ia the csss, nor Is
Is cnntanded that the verde, Is uusurp lrtsd
by the evidence. There isno error add the
judgment Is silirned.
SINNER va the Stats from Tarrant
county. This is sn appeal from q convlc.
ticn for an aggravated assault and battery
committed on one Kahn. The melton for
continuance NAs properly oyerruled &C the
same did not show the necessary aud proper
diligence Defendant should have caused
an attachment TO be issued for tho absent
witnesses. a careful inspection OF ths
record falls to reveal any error ? aud the jsds
Fondren vs. tho s,.te, mo. $3.50 from
Ellis county. Opinion by Wilson, ]. With
out consuming space 90 set forth the ayl'
dencc IN detail, Il ~ suilioion. To state that
the evidence IN the case isilr 10 show any
act com nitted By the defendant, which IN
law would constitute su assault, and be-
csuse the verdict Is not warranted by the
proof the judgment is reversed and tho
csu2e rsmsnded.
Short Ell. al, va. tho State; from Calm
county. Opinion by Wilson, J. rhD effect
OF q gensrsl dsuizl puts in issue oil mater.
ial l,euss In PLAINTIFF petition, In pro-
cesd,ng upon forfeited bail bond tha OTIS
tinn ssrvas as petition. a general denial
puts 10 issus 81 the allegations constituting
the ststs's cause o! action, snd caLts on the
state the burden az nrOyOg such elefa.
tons. The court, therefore, erred, . gen.
atal deniel being pleaded, TIN. |
no issue OF !sct had been presented in |
the case. "fne right Of trial BY Jury |
shalt remain invio!rta." ANY pariy.to .
civil suit Is entitled 10 trlsi by Jury on |
complying With IN. Law. Proceedings in !
toilslled bail cs,es alter judgment nisi and |
i-susuc, OF citation being tue same rs civil |
cIgs5. Irist in such cases arc governed bY |
the rules governing {, I'll cases. Appellants |
having com Piled with the law, were i'm |
properly refused trial by jury. A. peace |
officer under wHrrsnt OF sErest FOR ftl' |
ony, hss no authority to take bail, butmu5i
forthwith take the accused before tho |
proper magistrate. Reversed and dis
misssd.
Texas C Pacific railway vs.. Wheat: from |
TSrrant county. Opinion by Hurt !. |
Whsn the petition in substance alleged |
that appellant as common carrier was en-
gagged in transporting cattle from points be-
You'd the lines OF its road; that in connec- |
iiona with other roads IL shipped cattle on !
through bills OF lading, at agreed rstee Tor
the whole route, the contracts and bills OF
iading OF each railroad being recognized |
and carried out by the other; that plaintiff |
delivered to certain company 81 COM
mon carrier, and connecting lice With APP
pellsnt, certain cattle OF n8msd valuo,
and geid company received patd
cattle to be conveyed also |
TO Fort Worth thst because OF thu failure
OF said company to carry out the contract
al alleged certain OF the cattle died. that a.
T., stsiiou on sppellsuts' road, plaintiff |
demanded that the cattle bs taken out and |
wsteiad aud fed. which tha agent refused; |
that by reason OF various acts OF negligence
of appellant certain of the cattle died, or
we're injured, etc and plaintiff failed 10
oiTar in evidence either Tbs bill OF lading or
other contract OF shipment. Held: The
petition declaring on "a bill ofladiog, WITH.
cut its Introduction in evidence, or without
accounting for its production, plaintiff
was not entitled TO q Judgment. If the in.
iuries were received whils tina cattle we're
in possession of the carrier and through its
negligence, delivery 10 the shipper will not
relieve the carrier from liability. Reversed
and remslded.