Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-15
THE HIGH COURTS.
Syllabus Of Opinions Rendered at the
Austin Term.

Syllabus of Opinions Rendered nj the
Austin Term.
Prepared specially for THE GAZETTE by n. p.
jackson, Reporter OF the Appellate Courts
OF Texas
SUPREME COURT.
Robertson VS.. Robertson. from Brown
county. In n suit for divorce the
plaintiff averred that he and the de-
PENDANT were married in Kentucky in
1S44, and lived together as man and
wife until 1858, when the defendant
left his bed and board without cause.
and has continued her abandonment
He also alleged that she left him with
intent of perpetual abandonment.
The only evidence was that of wit.
ness for plaintiff who testified that the
parties were intermarried some thirty
years ago and lived together
until about 1869 when she
left him and went to Memphis, where
she resided for many years. Suisse
quently she went to witness home in
Missouri, where she lived for some
time, finally going to California, where
she now lives. Upon this evidence
the court rendered judgment for de-
PENDANT. Held, correct; that 1t was
incumbent on plaintiff to show with
reasonable certainty that he neither
caused, procured nor consented to the
separation. See so Texas, 657. for the
rule. Affirmed on report of Delaney,
commissioner.
Chatham va. May, from Coryell
county. Appellant sued appellee 10
try right Of property to certain gin.
From agreed statement IL appears that
appellee sued one l.. for possession of
the property and plaintiff sued out and
levied seJuestration July 2S, 1880. On
November s, 1880, Chatham Il Co. filed
oath and bond as claimants, received
and still hold the property. Claimant
rendered as the issue, which was &C.
cepted and acted on by the court,
whether he was entitled to recover by
virtue of certain deed of trust from l..
to Chatham Dc Co. and deed made to
for May, the appellant assigns as error;
], court erred in holding the deed ol
trust from l.. to Chatham d Co
void for want of sufficient
description of the property; ., court
erred in rendering judgment for appel
lee. Held, /. First ground of error /,
not supported by the record, as ii doe
not appear upon what special groun;
the court rendered its judgment;
The burden was on claimant to show
his right ofpossession as against plant
IFS claim Of ownership, which he asser
ed by virtue of n decree Of the distIic
court in favor of X. d Co. against sal,
l.. foreclosing a lien on said property
order OF sale, sale and purchase by Ma,
Feb. IL. 1850. Also o Judgment which
plaintiff put in evidence rendered b,
the district court of Coryell county
which gave May writ OF possession
against l.. Under the facts shown
Judgment could not have been other
wise. Affirmed on report of Walker
presiding commissioner.
Hoover VS.. Texas d Pacific Railwa.
Company. from Tarrant county. TIN
general rule Is, that person Tor hi
heirs IN case ofhis death cannotrecove
for an injury to which he contributed
by his own want of ordinary care. TIL
record shows tpat at the time the de
ceased entereN upon the appellee
track the danger from the engine an,
tender was imminent, and that III 3
doing he was unquestionably guilty q
negligence that was the proximat
cause of the injuries received by him
Upon these facts the Judgment of tn
, court was correct. Affirmed. West, }
Rucker vs. Missouri Pacific RailWa
} Company, from Grayson county. AZ
. tton against the company for persons
. damages. The attending physical
testified that the appellant was POI
. sessed of the ordinary intelligence OF
. full-blooded negro. Other evident
r showed that he was neither an imbecil
nor non compos mentis. 1t was fu
: Their shown tnat without the know
| edge or consent of the conductor OF ID
: train, the appellant voluntarily an
D with advice Of no one elected 10 roe
, the piIot. near the cowcatcher. Furthe
4 that when questioned by the conduct'
0 as to his motive in riding on the pilo
n replied that he had not suiiiciel
: money to nay full fare, and paid VI
j. fireman fifty cents for privilege
f riding on the pilot. The evidence
: sufficient to support the judgmen
s Affirmed. West, j. ,y,,
d Daurherty VS.. Harris, from Wilso
3 county. Alter u mistrial in a. count.
v Harris presented an application J.
y chan"e IF venue, which Daugherl
e contested upon the ground thai y
e sunnortinc affiants were not credlp
e persons. The application was grants
q and venue changed TO w. COUNT
e This action alone is relied upon. II
Z order granting the change OF venue
d cited that aflidavits pro and con We
= considered, From bill OF exceptiol
v upon this ruling, properly authen,
- Gated. it appears that Daugherty pr
n nosed To prove that the supporting
l. tiauts of the application were not Gre
4 fused. The Judge Endorsed on the d
=. that he refused to hear evideh
A. because the application being In prop
~ form was a matter of right, and !, n
r within his judicial discieu ..aa,.,u
Of tlice of bill OF exception y ,ii n,;on
rs truly and correctly show tne ac.io ~.
D, the court upon any, psrllcHm ah ~
m ton. When an application ~, o I, =
n Of venue conforms 10 Art. 49, .t Al,
is be defeated only by proof od .has ~ y,
e porting atlantis are not cieu .h;s nj Il
er sons. Art. l,272,l pom .1 w w,
ed evidence Is admissible. l3o "a
5S9.l Reversed, remandeu anu rar,
transferred to A. county, upon ief'
ID Of Watts, commissioner. ,n,
Id Davis VS.. Gray, from iiays. a
,is The note il negotiable ~ at
he bears on its face no eviuen,Ia ~, n
10. was ever expected to be sighen ~ n =
.at other parties than 4. ~ Co.', ant th ~ ,
,g. liant; and, II the avermeh.s ~ lei
In swer are TO be taken Us Iue, VIC -. or
lie, cred by Il. g. Co., 70 Tbis bel