Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-17

law for makmw such motion, Ia "a thu nN-
ture OF bin of review, ana to be enter.
talncd must NOT only show noOd grounds
for a new trial II the application had heen
made IN time, but also sufficient legal
excuse for not presenting 1t n time. ia
vorscd and romanded, Opinion by WIN.
sou, j.
Missouri Pacific Railway COMPANY i.
LaWicr appeal from AM Where the
hogs Killed by tho train were running al
large IN precinct where the hog law had
been adopted, the company will only bel
able ON proof OF gross negligence on
their part aud "negllgcneeN cannot he
considered gross unless evidenced hy
an entire failure TO exercise care, or hy
the exercise of SO slight a degree of care
as 10 Justify the belief that the person ON
whom The care WAS incumbent Was ntilf-
icrenl to the interest and welfare OF oh.
ers. ], x s., N, IL, Va Cooke, Texas Court
Reporter, September 1855, ~ 3Gl, Re-.
versed ami rcmanded Opinion by
White, z. j.
Houston q Texas Central Railway Com.
nany VS. LcVipe Bros, appeal from Me.
icuuan. A statement OF facts WAS ap-
proved aud Died moro than ten DAYS altar
the times In such case this court cannot
consider The exceptions To- evidence ad-
mittcd which We notice 10 The statement
/ Of facts, because not presented to the
1 Judge for his allowance and Signature
| within ten days from the conclusion oi
( the trial Bunny. Schrum, % Tex. d2Si
see also GO Tex, Go In on.
der TO hold carrier lla
/ Die for goods lostin being transported, 10
must be shown hy oompCteni c,l.
/ dcnce that the goods were delivered TO
and accepted by the carrier OF his avont
\ 10 Is sufficient to prove that thry had
been delivered TO and accepted rs "a con-
Meeting line Is incompetent whom IL iS
shown that all he knew about the lnattor
| was hy reference TO the books of the
/ shipper such testimony wps heresav.
| And 80 is the testimony of a witness as
to the contonts of hilI of ladug when 80
| is disclosed that he did not see the bin 0f
ladiug, and thOt the copy attached 90 hts
answers was nude By another person, and
not IN his presence Reversed amt rV.
handed Opinion hy Wilson, y
/ Howard NuntrCssur W.. the Stte, an.
lpgH from Dallas. The appeal be- from a
conviction for lnpe of cNiid nUo yurs
old, Judgment b. reversed, because the
evidence Is not conclusive ~ She defMd.
ants guilt. Two objections noted 10 the
evidence are elycp The child INFUSED
testified through an Interpreter, sjAting
that She could NOT speak tho EugI,sa lon-
gua8e, but German only, aad sos sha ae.
tailed conversations which she dad Ind
With defendant, Who. it was shown, could
; not speak Gerpan
Two examinations 81 hcr Der
son were made ell ,liNers
cnt times hy d6uout physicians Tbe
one who Uadc The last examination tceu-
T lied on the trial, but the olhty dij not,
nor was any reason given for not calling
him in case ike this it IN Incumbent
upon the prosecution Co adduee ill Tho
evidence within reach. Cooley ys. tho
State, IL c. App. 277. Reversed and
rcmanded Opinion by Wilson, #.
Cult Colorado and Santa itv hallway b.
Ann Jones ct nl Appeal from JoDnson.
where the owner OF thc soil had granted
tho right OF way 20 the railway company
aud IN doing SO did not require the CON.
pny TO provide and maintain CROSSING
over said right of way, tho company aIe
under no Obligation to DO so, mad while
the owner Of the said IL entitled To u
crossing as a way OF necessity, lc must