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

below 70 sign or allow the bill when first
presented by counsel win not be reversed
by This court, Affirmed Per curtain.
Arch Latasm vs.. the State, ap-
peal from Hunt. The only proof
OF venue IN this case was as follows
The property was taken from Upihegroye
y Patlcrson'S wagonSard in the town Of
GrconNillc, and defendant was seen Ia
possession OF It AZ Strlngiown. Held,
this court does not jndiclally know that
the wagon-yard Of Jpthcgrove & latter.
son, or Grecnyille or Str,ngtown arc ID
Hunt county, and the venue Is mot shown.
When seen ia possession Of the coat
stolen, the defendant stated that Ne had
borrowed the same from his brother, and
several witnesses testified 60 this iact.
lie was wearing IL ina public place, with
no attempt az COhUcalmout. Held, that
the statement was reasonable, and not
being contrddctod, NOR no attempt made
60 diScrvdit or impoach the witnesses who
sworo 30 The fact. the evidence rs INSULT
Client 10 support the verdict and the mo.
tlon for y new trial should have been
granted. Reversed and romanded
Opinion BY Hurt, j.
w penman vs. A. \ jordan, appeal
from Hopkins. Appellee received an or.
der for goods from appellant, and on the
same day selected the goods from his
stock, boxed and marked them To appel
lant'S address and delivered the package
70 railroad company, taking and
forwarding TO appellants address by mail
the bill OF lading u few moments before
the delivery of The goods to the railroad,
but after they were packed appellee re-
cCived u telegram as follows "Dont
ship goods ordered TIL MY letter reaches
you." Appellant refused to receive the
goods and suit by appellee and Judgment
IA his favor for the contract price.
Held When the goods were selected.
packed and marked In pursuance oi the
order tue sale was complete, Il not an.
ptaring from the terms of the contract
that appellee was 10 deliver The goods 80
appellant or to q carrier 20 bO transported
TO him, This case Is distinguished from
Woods Us. Half, "a Tex, GS5, by the fact
that tn that case the custom OF merchants
IN Galveston was shown Again, The
effect of the Telegram was not to ubso-
lutely countcrmend the order, and SO
would not abSolvc appellant from Hahil-
| iN. Affirmed. Opinion by Wilson, y.
ENparte Frank Swain aud cNparte Jake
Turner appeals from Navarro. Appel
| lant3 sued out writ OF haboas corpus be-
fore the district indgc and asked TO Nc
/ released from custody because the IA,
| dictments under which they were held
were invalid, being presented
! by a grand jury comprised of more than
| twelve men. Upon the hearing Il was
admitted 10y each that the facts charged
against them IN said pretended indict-
ucJ thst IN so tarss ,hcy o,,, ,,,troin,,,i
Inv o,tbnrity of ~, invita- G,i,,t,n",,t.
s1rh restraint H. ulc.ai hnt nnor thrtr
admission thew may he held 10 answer
Tor the uffeuscs charged TO mo next term
OF the court. Judgments rcanlrmed ana
appellants admitted 10 batl i'm $500 each.
Opinion by Wilson, j.
Apd,rs.,r a. ,t ,s ro seat. n,r.,,i
frnn, Ns,arrn mo al,ll,i,r ,f H., ,iiIi,r.i.
t,a,l ,,, ln,,,,, ,,t,,,,.,t 49,. M
Icnrrtm ,n ,l,c stst,,t,,,., ,.,Y,iitt,,,y IN
I5,,l l,,,,,l 49,, t.,o n,,,W,.,
~ 1,5.,,,,I,.,,t3 ,'.'
81, ,j,,'.,.,,,,', ,.r,,+ go,
.'.,. 49,, -, N
I'M .,,,,, ,',,, i1i .,,,t 49, y
.ri,.' f.,., n,.,t KAN ~. , 49,,
t,s,,J ", for.,"r tor,, a,,I ,nd',,,',,,,.
,,tst ,,t,r..d ,,1 .it,,to, yl
an ,f .,,,r, rr,,,,,,i,,,s NM, -, NV,
,,,usa n,l ,,c,t'i i,,,l.,,,',
,f hn cnnr, ~,
/. rcndo, the bond pp@s,n,v ~
rrc,e,,t % ephsro,,ent f,rr'itnre t6o,onf
mo bonG wos s,crrd i ~ pi,n,.
r. ana nrl,ci,,.l ,r"s stofcd IN 0'o ~" !,
'L,. hnnd ~ wv fnni' NJ, INA ~
sn,sonn'.nt nrncccai,es Lo ,,os ,,on,ai a..
facl njynn NH I'M tb. ,,tIlt,
n",,,,, ,,,t t,si,,, ,,at,,,tai ~, ,tI,, IT, w.,
ei i',, ,ne s,and far NJ ,,,d ,,aro 4,
n9',a,Jorcn ANNA I'm, -
40 ''',''NN' ''"'N -
EN parIe James = Lynn, appeal IRON
Mllnh. IN thls case inc constitution
! amy OF the locai-optlon law Is questioned
because II mas lnc ehect 70 take or dam
! age private property Tor pubic use WIN
out compensation 10 the owner ana with
+ out due course oil iaW' In passing upoi
thls point the court says "Ihere Il
strong reasoning IN support OF 10,
position assumed, ana were II an origlnn
question TINS court wound ne inclined u
mold that tho locai,opuon Jaw ls an IN
lrlngemeht OF seciiop J OF our Blll o
| Rights, which nrGEiUpH tOut no pprHOu'i