Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-04

thc rclators have each been Indicted, trlcd
and convicted for theft OF cattle In the
/ district court Of Navarro county aud are
1 undor sentence OF imprisonment Ia the
pcnltentlary The object OF this appiica.
tlon Is to test the legality OF the proceed
ings IA the District court, II hciug shown
that there were thirteen men on The
grand jury which presented tho indlct-
ment. The question Of the right OF she
applicants to thus test the legality 90 the
proceedings after verdict aud sentence
has boon settled IN this state Ia the case
ct oN parto Eacn, 20 Texas Reports, S5l.
See also cN partc aleGrcw, SO Texas, l56s
Duveah vs. Wes,erlogc, "a Texas, aSS,
iudcrwooc's case, so Mich, 60a. The
writs are refused Opinion by WhNc,r,j.
ES partc Bcn Powers. In chambers ;
application was made Ga Wilson, j., for
the writ OF hahCas corpus, the applicant
being Il convict IN tile penitentiary. The
ground relied on for the writ and dis.
charge Hereunder WAS that the grand Jury
witch presented the Indictment uider
which ho was tried tnl CON.
ylctcd of ioiouy wx com
posed OF more than twelve men, Under
Authority 81 The decision Ia Ok partc tul.
Ter, supra, The judge held that the defect
could not be reached hy means o. the
writ OF habcaS corpus Application rs.
! fused Wilson j.
Sam ocrius vs.. the State, appeal frow
Williamson NhercaA dhenSu Ia made
60 depend upon the fact that IL is twill
fullyi done, " Is necessary that tho
court should define tho meaning of tlc
word wllllully IN It's charge 20 the iuly.
, Tho definition glvou IN this ease was SHY
lMilliullN as used in this char4o,S meant
, that the act was done WITHOUT reason.
able ground 20 believe the act ol takinn
was lawiul,M Held, that the de0uitiou is
correct, being IN Nccordance with that an.
/, nomcod by this court IN Thomas VS.. lhC
, State, IA CT. app. 300 Affirmed, Opinion
by White, Pa,
s. A, WllkorSon VS., ROWAN 8 Patty
appeal FROM I'm Va this state the witt
may legally ucumher by mortgage
= her separate estate "a Secure debt ui
; liability OF her husband Halle and wii,
VS. Franeis Brown, Tex 1851 HAL
, Tvs. Dotson 56 rcN b9O Prior to tlit
adoption OF the Revised sStatuteg
all tonveymoes by tho Wilu d
her separate property, whethol
real on PERSONAL to I've valid were re-
qulred 10 BIO Acknowledged by her in th,
! manner provided hy the s@tGto4. Suci
is not now the l0w, except as TO ron
estate, az. 81, art. 66N1 and ChNtto
( mortgage hy the Wlfo OF her btparAt,
' personal property though not aWthun
ticatcd for registration cor acknowledged
. Is Naltd aud binding. Affirmed Oplnlui
i, by Wilson, j.
! Western Union Telegraph Company ys
y a. MclienY, appeal from J0huson a
I verdict on decree cures an doieets, m
peuectipns or omissions "a thr petition
7 or abatement 81 the cause OF action
Y whether oi substance cr ul form, Il ih
Z issues iolued be such ma require proc
!. OF The facts mpcHecuy Stated o
y, omitted. In this case the petition va
F" defective in not alleging the facts While
= would nuuu the plautN % lecoye
/, special and consequential damages ha
y ~ heun eycented to on thar ground aU
v Che evidence IN support ~ that lssp
were inndmissible. but such exception
i ana objections So oyldcnce gro too lat
y when made Tor the first time u thl
y court AllitmCd Opinion by White, Il, j
= Cuff Colorado q Santa no lAilwa
Company Ng. L. BohllnW, nppal
> from McLennan, Copnvetn0 Hae
OF carriers, whore freight Is shlpp0
y oWr such lines upon Through hlil O
y ladlnR, are each responslhl0for The toss o
injury done 30 such freight, aud "a
!, person entitled 70 damages may 10 h!
v election sue elthor one or al OF sue
Y lines, aud his right 10 recover Of the on
sued does not depend upon whether o
not such loss or lniuryloocurred while N
freight was In charge Of that company
Such company rs liable although the loN
g may have occurred on one of The otho
connecting lines.
= A stipulation IN contract oi shlpmon
4 90 the effect "that none ol said steam
y ships OF connecting lines shall be rospon
g slbl0 Tor the aboYe-namcd packages, eN
q cept while having possession of tho Haine
e the responsibility OF such steamer or line
, commencing with the receipt Of the same
@ aud ending with the delivery thereof &
}. the connecting steamer or road, or Ii
y agents, or In case Of last connecting
6 steamer or road, With delivering az plac
& 81 destination Il not valid one, an
c cannot have the effect to lessen ar limi
Q The liability OF either q The copnoctip
q lines.
+ A condition 10 The contract 81 sbipmcn
. IN regard 70 adjustment 81 damage hei0r
Q the freight ~ 'srcmgyed ifof
: the station and prucrriug tn
i claim "within ten days ate
!. such dcliyory," has no application 60
I case IA which The conslgnee refuses 20 ~
q colyo Il.
r unacr stipulation lhat the da,ungo Z
j be- recovered N tbs event Of loss shotii
G be the cost value "a The plnce md timo Q
z shipment, IL was not error 20 render
? Judgment for siioh eost yulpc aud IN
q cost for packing auh draragN 90 stcanci
4 Affirmed Opiuionby Wilson, J
4 Bonner g Col vs. Henry Moores,oppoa
6 from Hin as stated M the second oHgl
3 mi petition, this rlt was for tho balapc
!. duo on contract loT W0rk aud labor
amounting 10 the aggregate 70 1891 80
l. But plnlntlR alleges lhht dgiondent has
!. Just and VALID elpiU agatt him tor tb
d sun " 922l2a, whsch, ne AYERS, heinf
= aedncttd leaves defendant pWlng hir
g Sl70.2i, for which amount With inicica
he pr0ya iuagnent Held That DO peti
e tion SHOWED tNai u. uit WIS Tor eur
g holow ~ i4HNleNun 90 iiie cornf
q court, aud ihat appellants mpti2uln ag
rest ~ iudgmeut, baeea upon Wapl q
II jurisdiction Of ihl court, sh0uld ulY
II been susNinrd iippored ANA wmagGl
D With Instructions 50 lismiss Opinion g
White. pJ
Mathew williams ia. the state lp
(, peal from Falls. where there
Z conflict % thr evidence Du
d enough X adducpd 90 sustain con
i gittion. ana che charge euhplis % tla
Il fury every ithuN mndN oFaraiug upua tll