Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-05
SUPREME COURT.
'psis Of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting of the
Supreme Court.
|, up From the Full and Official Re
|spors Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered.

Burnet county, This action was
ght By appellees, the only sur
lg children and heirs of Mrs. V.
u W., who was the daughter Of 7.
and his wife, who died in 1875.
action was brought by next
dis to recover 100 acres Of land,
ited 70 T. G. B. in 1877, but in fact
erly Belonging to the community
-pself and deceased wife. 1t seems
after the death of his wife Il.
parol partition of the lands be-
nng to thu community estate be-
w himself aud children, this tract
rig to Mrs w then Mrs. Fletcher,
rvo deed was made to her. After
m marriage with w. he, W.,
,wed money from appellant, Sc.
by q note executed by Il. 4. b.,
k, and deed of trust on this land.
and was subsequently, sold undo r
rust deed aud bought 10y appel.
'or 500, which was credited on the
note Subsequently, appellant
b, for balt nee of the note and re.
hid Judgment, and on the trial Of
.ase the appellees were permitted
u I'VE 3 % payment of the balance
sie note after the appropriation Of
roceeds Of the sale, and to intro
1.-THE Headings in that action in
Hncein this. Held, that the evil
was irrelevant and preiddiclsl
RELIANT, aud should have been
pdded Again, the appellees were
-7perly allo wed to prove u c)nver-
wi between b and w. not in the
"nce of appellant, and of which he
shown to have any knowledge
Aation to the ownership of the
by Mrs. w. through inheritance
her mother and parol partition
ner father. Reversed and re-
led.
blsx. Smith VS.. the Texas & Pacific
Way Company, from Taylor
.ly. A railroad company is re.
nd to Keep its premises safe for the
K the public when it expressly or
Nh conduct induces such use, and is
to persons using them who suffer
indefects in such premises the
many is under a special duty
p,ise who 60 upon the premises for
nrpose OF travelling or for the
,,se of transacting other business
INT Reversed and remauded.
International d Great North.
br-ttsilway vs.. Klaus, from Comal
y. This case was an action for
ages for injury to growing crops.
Afbstance the petition set up that
sfendant so constructed its bridge
the Comal river as to prevent
assage hereunder of drift-wood;
reason of the accumulation OF
DsHood at the bridge the channel
NJ stream was INSTRUCTED and the
Escaused 10 run above its natural
MI Ind overflow plaintiff IS land, to
pW2mage, eJc, Plaintiff was per-
All TO Introduce several witnesses,
Tere familiar with the usual rain
= that section, who stated that
IN heavy rains torrents OF water
I down the channel, carrying
b, trees and drift-wood in great
h, tiles, and that in their opinion
q penings in the bridge were
roI large enough to permit
Aseage Of the drift. 1t was OBJ
that the witnesses were not men
nee and skill in the matter of
building, and should not have
lsermitted to give opinions. (See
lvenl lIv. Sic. 44O There are
however, in which unskilled
ses may give opinions, and still
h, ir class in which they may do
a,nln they give, at the same time,
to on which they are founded.
latter class this case belongs.
ithorities collsted in l Wharf.
~" &c. 5l2, note 10; particularly
vs.. Manfg Co. II Conn, 249,
,,u,l Ten 1885, 26 Tex. l4G The
IN zee, however, as whole, was
ser insufficient to SHOW that the
n aSs caused the overflow md hence,
lort the verdict. Raves sed and
led.
DC We. Webb, from Hill county
otition's description of the land
fective in that the third call
" VIpt give the course OF the line,
lis would be corrected by the
ling call, which gives the course
kHbgth OF the fourth line, from
IN connection with the other
Anhe course OF the third line is
nE. The fact that the call for the
ing corner Of the tract on the
Inc OF the M. survey, OF which
,'lart, ~ erro eous, was not called
"a attention of the court by the
NH demurrer, and probably not by
- nerai demurrer, and for the
and chht thsy were void for uncer-
20 ana misdescription, no psrol
ai.se having been introduced to
gass 70 the inconsistency, the deeds
Esa.e9 ected to when offered In evil
iSS But the mistaken call To q mn
In pm the north line of the sur.
stng corrected by the other mat.
A. Z, ~ scription, must be disregard
s.srefiect given to the other calls
lsssgill carry out the manifest in.
ssyss,of the p irties to the deeds. and
ecu re properly admitted Ia evil
D, e As link in his chain of q Vi
Aintift offered deed to which
CoUNended the following duplicate
x, 6 n0wledgment formal parts
~ personally ap-
aY. 4. Good win, to me well.
uparty 10 the above ms ,rument
Ukgs Bearing date April 8, 1877
n sflsaowledged that - had --
Say Msealed,h etc. Held, that In
t,siSpS, chow that he, the said Good
sE .td iss,ilen the deed, the certificate
- uilieient. Rev. Stats 430S,
aving no proper certificate of
RV edgment, the deed was er.
W. admitted in evidence. Re-
b., Fc'nd remanded
rFusDAy We. Alice Evans, from Tar.
TrOp uty. The court overTHled OBJ
,.a N fha danngitYo,a SNT -