Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-25
THE HIGH COURTS.
SYLLABUS of Opinions Rendered st the
Galveston Term, 1884.
COURT on APPEALS

nenl The failure Ut the clerk TO make
The writ uf certiOrari returiable M the
XII term OF the court Will not of itself
work n pr, judce tn the appellant. The
statutcs provide: "At the first term of
the court to which the cprtloruri is re-
turnabIe, the adverse party may move
10 dismiss the writ for want or SUM-
cient bond, or n sufficient showing In
the affidavit OF cause for the issuance
nf the WRIT QuHere: Whether, for
any other reason, n motion In dismiss
coitl he entertained? Art. 1903 Of the
revised statutes providsethat: "ln or
der TO constitute sufficient cause the
facts stnied ia the petltion) must show
either that the justice of the peace had
moi Jurisdictions. or that injustice was
done to the applicant 10y the final de-
termination OF the suit or providing,
and that such injustice was not caused
by his own neglect The petition in
this shows that Judgment was rem
dered against appellant over his ohjec-
ton and without evidence. Held; suf-'
ncient. Reversed and remanded. Will
son, j.
Fred Davis VS.. the State, from Me-
Lehman couuty.-rhe indl tment
charged a burglary with intent to raw.
i,h Miss Laura Scarborough by force
and fraud The punishment awarded
was two years in the penitentlary.
The principal assignment of error is
that The court erred in refusing special
instructions asked. The rule upon
such question is, that when the gem
eral charge Is correct, as a whole, the
refusal of special charges, even though
they prevent sufficiently correct prin-
ciples OF law, is not error. The in
dictmpnt and The evidence is sufficient
and the judgment is affirmed
Mundin, admins ratriX, vs.. Grove ct
ais, from Galveston county. This was
suit instituted by he appellees
against the estate of Mundin, deceased,
and T.. NJ. Mundin, TO recover on "a
contract for legal services. +. NJ. Nj.
made default, and the administrators
answered by general demurrer and
special exception that upon its face
the petition showed the claim barred
by the statute of limitations and gen.
eral denial. The judge, setting without
ajury, overruled the special except IN,
rendered Judgment for plaintiff Zap
pellee) which action Is assigned IA err
ror Held, that there WAS no error
in the action OF the court, both petit
ton and the evidence failing to sus-
tain the assignment. Affirmed
Martin vs.. the State, from johnson
county.-UpOn an Indictment for muir
der the appellant was convicted of
man-laughter and his punishment af
fixed at four years i'll the penitenliary
IL was objected on the trial that the
court erred in admitting evidences to
the effect that when overt tken several
a.. "A
told the sh.riff that " hen he struck
the deceased he h d no purpose to in
flIct death. Such declaration was
made too long after the oilense TO he
res gestdc In 50 far as the special
charges asked by defendant were cor
rect, they were embraced i'll the gen
eral charge, if taken as whole, it is
substantially correct, and particularly
in the absence of exceptions. Affirm
ed.
Caroline Williams w. State, from
Lavaca county. - The conviction
in this ease was for the murder OF
| Amy Adams, the punishment awarded
being II life term IN he penitentiary.
Obje ton that the conviction il not
support,d by the evidence. is not sus-
tanned by the record The charge Of
the court is perhaps little.faulty, but
il was not excepted u when given,
nor its correctness called in question
in The motion for new trial, and hence
will not be considered with "a view to
revision. Aflirmed.
| Brown VS.. Engel, from Fayette
county.-lt was attempted to sustain a
suit for rent Wherein distress warrant
WAS levied on certain cotton, by proof
on the part of the plaintiff, that he
did not, in fact, at the inception of the
transaction, rent the premises u the
defendant, but that he sold il To him
Tor IA stipulated amount, TO be paid in
| the future. that he had TO take IL back
because OF non-pay nIent, and that in
the sell lemeit IL was agreed that the
| defendant was to be released from his
purchase for the n-idrration of GER
tam cotton; that learning that defen-
dant was making way with the cotton,
the y a,ntlif levied the distress war
rant upon 1t, and institu ted his suit for
rent. Held that such evidence does
not establish The relation of landlord
and tenant. Reversed and dismissed.
Calm vs.. > ,linar. rom Webb cpun-
ty.-To the plain ifs suit for rent the
defendant answered by admitting the
contract price of the rent, except US to
'ne month, and set up as offs. / item
lzed account against the plaintiff veri-
lied by all lavit, which sworn account
wa. not cnntr0verted by the plaintiff
under oath The court, however, per-
mitled the plaintiff to controvert the
same by eNtrane' us evidence. Held,
mat the amount was such as comes
under the provisions of act 228B re-
vlsed statutes it included items of
merchandise and money furnished
ana being such, in order to di quite
the defendants sworn account, il was
necessary that 1t be denied by written
denial under oath, therefore the court
erred III admitting other evidence.
reversed and remanded.
uhomis vs.. State, from Bell county
The oiiense charged in this indict-
ment was theft from the person, the
article stolen being trunk check,
cont and two et-handkerchiefs.
me statement of facts IL insufficient,
ior 'he reason that, though signed by
the attorneys and approved by the
court ~ does not appear 10 have been
lliea' .The charge of the court under
such circumstance is. revisabie for fun
uaihental error only. Now such is
apparent In the charge in this case,
anu no exceptions were reserved to
me charge ~ favored. A motion for
renearlng Is based upon the certificate |
m tne district clerk alleging that, In |
run run and In fact, THE statement of