The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-04-20
rnR nranrR oouRTs.
SUPREME COURT.

KeAsOHhpio apprehension Vi udnEor W
he physical comfort and safety of c.
he complaining party, divorce can be y
granted. 1t has been held that single n
net of violence, though it amount to a r
simple assault, upon the person OF the Z
wife, is not sufficient to Justify di- T.
v0rce. In Massachusetts, It is held that
when force or violence is once used by L
the husband without provocation on the 1
wife's part, a divorce should be granted. {
But In this state, when all the circum- c
stances considered together are calcu- /
lated to produce in the mind OF the wife '
such fear of future ill-treatment as to
render living with her husband insup- !
portable, a divorce will be granted. The
facts of this case warranted divorce
and the court erred in refusing TO so
grant IT. Reversed and remanded.
Eoveioy We. Hart, from Wise county;
Willie, C. ]. Where suit Is brought by
A against b upon note given for the
purchase money Of a tract of land, and
@, a subsequent purchaser, is madea
party, and a foreclosure of lien is asked
on the land, and @ being nonresident
is sued by publication, but the record
does not show that service was had, or
that any return was made on the cita-
ton. Held: 1t was an error for the court
to render judgement by default against
b 9th parties as no service is shown GU |
either, b never having been served at
all. Reversed and remanded.
Ryan VS.. Leer, from Tarrant county; |
Willie C. j. A and Ii made an exchange |
OF lands but no deeds passed between |
them up to the institution ofsuit. Both |
parties had, however gone into posses
sion OF the respective lands exchanged |
and received, and were receiving ronts
therefor. A had made valuable inn
proyements on the land received by
him, commencing same in the lifetime
of Is. The lands exchanged by B had
been purchased from A and there was
$500 due as purchase money on them.
After BIS DEATH paid TO his executor tho
$500. Held, none buta decree for. title
to tho property exchanged by b TO
could be docreCd 90 \ had already
given deeds to his land 10 b. Affirmed.
Stone & Co. vs.. Hill, Fletcher ~ Co.;
from Cooke county, Willie, G, !. Who're
the original petition, dled April 8, 1884,
was verified by affidavit and, together
with all other necessary statutory allo-
cations TO authorize writ of attach
ment, averred that the account was pay
able on July /, 1884. Hold,'to be . snlli-
Client averment that the debt was due on
July ], 1884, and that these facts do not
bring che case within the principle an
nounced In Cox VS.. Reinhardt, fl Texas,
soil and Seeligson vs.. Hobby, 81 Texas
l47 Affirmed.
Ely VS.. Quinn ct al; from Gonzales
county. Delany, /. Adopted. The
clause IN the decd through which the
forfeiture WAS claimed by appellees and
granted BY the lower court, Is as fol-
lows. "With the reservation or eXcep-
ton that the said w. b. Fry shall not
himselfnor permit the Same 20 be done
by any one holding title by, thorough or
under him, Keep for sale upon the
premises herein conveyed, any spiritu-
GUS or Intoxicating liquors, under for
feiture Of the title to tho promises herein
described Held: A similar judgment
TO this was sustained by this court in
Jettray VS.. Graham, 3 Texas Law Re-
view 800, and also by the case OF PluAh
VS.. Tubbs, II N. Y. i42. The condition
or prohibition contained in the deed did
not refer to the sale of Liquor as o medi.
cine but as a beverage. While, If the
appellant was engaged in the sale OF
liquor as beverage for number OF
years on a lot In tho same village which
was held under the same prohibition
all of which was known TO the appel
lees and no objection was made by them
IL might be an estOppel or waivor of the
prohibition, which can be waived, yet
whore the plea did not allege that the
liquor was sold as a beverage il was no
maintainable. Affirmed.
Mason VS.. Gonzans county. Walker
p.j. Where the question for deterrnin
alton Is one simply OF fact ana the cour
passes upon IL without the Intervention
OF jury, its Judgment Ii entitled To tht
same weight as that given a verdict o
ajury, and If there DO evidence to sus
tain the finding, whore there is con
flict Is the evidence, the finding Will b
sustained. Affirmed.
Horne vs. Chatham 4 Co., from
Brazos county. Watts, ]. Adopted
An exclusive right to patent in
specified territory Is not mere license
revacable at the wifi OF the uendor, bu
il the exclusive right under the letter
patent within tho said territory. TIL
tailuae Of the vendoo 10 have such IN
strument recorded In tho patent Ollic
within three months of It's execution
does not affect the validity Of the ii
strument as to the parties 70 it. ParO
or other evidence is admissible to d,
termine the Territory where tho instru
mont only conveys tho interest of Oh
vendor and does not state what the IN
forest Is. Reversed and romanded.
CoUIT OF ArPEALs.
Jeclkly w, tho State, from WIGHT
county, Conviction for keeping
gambling table. Fine assessed g
Indictment good and sufficient. No e.
ceptiOna taken 90 the charge, The O.
ceptiOn does not show but chat the tor
OfooUrt was held at the proper time an
does show q proper transfer of u
case TO the county court. Affirmed.
Strickland w, the states, from Bayl
county. Conviction for uulawmuy Ca
rying pistol, Fine assessed 81
Where the information alleges the q
fen % O. have boon committed abo
April 1 and the evidence Is that 10 W
committed about tho lst of Apr
though mono OF the witnesses were pc
tive M 90 the exact date it IA suflioie
e.. Oh fltuN tln al b
anterior to the3date OF the complain
Affirmed.
Fronchy VS.. the State, from Witch
county, Conviction for betting at
gaming table. Fine assessed $40.
diotment is good, No statement
facts in the record. The term OF COT
held on SEPTEMBER |, 1881, which !
Ournel September -, 1881. was log
one and had not expired by operat
Of law. Affirmed.
johnson vs.. tho state; from Wioh
county. Conviction for fornicati
Fine assessed $50. Indictment a
charge of the court good. No statem
OF facts In the record, and there il no
ror apparent, Affirmed.
Cohen va the State; from Ellis COZ
ty. Conviction for keeping n sale
open on election day. Fine assess
Si25. objection to the Indictment /
twas found by tho "grand iuryN Is
maintainable. There is no error mp
rent OF record and tho Judgment is
firmed.
Culwell vs.. tho State; from Co
county. Conviction for theft O
mule. Punishment assessed at
years imprisonment In the peni
tiary. Evidence sufficiently shows /
IL was defendants intention 10 apr
PIRATE the animal 10 his own use
benefit whom he borrowed II. Affirm
Miller W. the State; from Co
county. Conviction for the theft
mule. Punishment assessed at
years in the penitentiary. Circums
tiai evidence TO show want OF tho
sent of the owner to
taking may DO admitted "