Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-11

|
w Con. Rep 140. 263. 3lb sal 1soo
And see WIS 2 Con. Rep. sec S,S
Affirmed 49, 90
Cannon VS.. the State. from Erea.
stone county, In a prosecution ~
theft OF hogs, the state nrnved ~
value Of the animals 10 he ovnr tho
value Of twenty dollars bv reason %,
tnelr peculiar qualities The dpfense
proposed TO prove the market Udluc Of
lne nogs, Dut was not permitted 10 do
30. Held, error, that the defendan :
was entitled, n lie could. TO show thsir
market value to be less than 500 Hav.
lng proved the weight Of the hogs,
anu Vnht tney were common range
noBs' me defense proposed 10 prove
the market value of tnasl.fed FORK ner
pound Held, that the conrt erred in
eAciuding such proof. Reversed and
remanded.
RAilway Company va. Patterson
from Iarrant county Theaubmisaion
OF an appeal on suggestion OF delay
opens the Gaze as to all errors OF rec I'd
whether assigned or not; A Tex 3sl
me suit WAS for the recovery Of danie.
ges II bu ming the grass, and the con.
sequehs INJURY OF the turf OF appellee's
lshd' Inc measure ofdamages in this
CLASS OF ca.es, considering the purposes
10 winch the land had been devoted
by the owner, WAS the difference ofthe
value OF the land Immediately before
s ana Immediately after the fire.
lhe record DRUGS up no state
meut OF facts The court finds. In its
conclusions OF fact, that the grass was
uestroye on thirty acres OF ground,
ana was worth S3 90 per acre, ard that
Ihe injury TO the turf was 81 so PER
acre There Is nothing in tn finding
OF the court showing the use OF the
lano,. CT that 1t WAS or WIS not in
closed: The rule requires proof OF the
use OF the land. Reversed and re-
manded.
Miles w. the STATE, from Bastrop
county. Upon the subject of murder
In the second degree the court charged
as follows: Every rash and inconsid-
crate killing under come sudden ina
pulse, wherein there is no sedate mind
and formed design 10 kill, is murder
In the second degtee The law implies
malice Every voluntary killing of u
human being IL murder IF the second
degree, unless the circumstances at i.
tending upon hand show express
malice, which would then be murder
In the first degree, or, upon the her,
such as would reduce the oflense TO
mans lsught"r, or which would excuse
or justify the homicide Held errone
Gus, because such killing " that de-
scribed in the first clause II
not murder Of the second
degree. Nor does the law in such case
imply malice, because tue rash and in-
considerable act may have arisen from
adequate cause, in which event the
otfense would have been granddaughter.
The charge upon granddaughter in
stead OF instrucling the jury, in arriv.
ing at their conclusion as to the
adequacy OF the cause. to look to what
occurred at the time, should instruct
them to look to all the facts In the
case. To justify seli-deiense by threats,
IL must Ice shown that at the lime of
the homicide the person killed, by
some act then done, manifested an in-
tention to act on The threats In quail
flying this rule by charging some
act II anifesting an intention 10 enact
the threats" the court erred. Reversed
and remanded
Brunswig & Co. va. Kramer, from
Tarr Mt county. This was al appealed
suit from the Justices to the county
court on account for goods furnished
Substantially. the facts are that X
procured b Il Co to order Tor him
lot OF plate glass, Bearing his, X q, m M
ogram When the glass arrived 3 &
60 demanded psy ment in the sum OF
$l7l 81, claimed as the reasonable mar
ket value OF the goods in the market.
X. declined to pay and refused the
glass. The glass was worthless 20 any
one hut X because OF the monogram
and dimensions, and was not s.leable
to other parties 1t was proved that
the market value OF the glass at Fort
Worth was Sl7l so, or would be but for
the monogram, etc The compensa.
ton siught to be re.
covered OF X. was the market
value OF the glass at + IT Worth
Upon this state of facts The court held
tina, the character Of action brought
could not be sustained. Proce, dinRs
la justice courts are not required TO he
in writing, and great liberality Ia in
dulged with respect to them. AL
though, techn cally speaking, this
might be characterized "a al action on
account for gonds sold, etc neverthe-
lees IL l., under the evidence. made to
appear that the party has substan-
tial right OF action for the value Of
the goods. Ordinarily In n case like
this the party would be entitled TO re-
cover the cnst ana CARR &c, with rea
sonable compensation for the trouble
In making the order and receiving the
same. II, however, it WAS II
usage and custom among trad
ers in Fort Wor h thai
when goods were or tered through
trader he would be entitled TO receive
the maIke' value OF the same, The
market value would be the measure OF
clmpensa ion. Bat there Is no evil
dence Of such custom In this recorc.
Reverted aud renal ded
Missouri Pacinc Railway Company
W.. MITCHELL. from tarrant county.
Failing 10 show al exercise Of due d'l-
igeBce 10 secure the absent witness,
the appellant was not entitled 10
c0niinuance his being All seton
for damages for breach OF contract for
shipment of cattle, IL was moi error To-
permit witness 10 state that
the appellants agent promised
H. .nnaltaa unnd