Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-11

so far as 1t goes, clear, accurate and
II becomes the duty Of
the party desiring further charges
upon some particular phase OF he case
10 ask It, The law does not 30 condi-
ton the validity of a sworn account in
n suit rs TO require that entries repre-
senting the several items should have
been made in the account book at any
particular time, and n requisite charge
affirming such doctrine In effect was
properly refused. Special charges,
Unauthorized by the evidence. are,
always, properly refused. Affirmed.
Railway vs. Millington, from Tar.
rant county. While the questions
propounded and the answers thereto
in the deposition. In matter OF form
were, Ia strictness, open to objection
the error was not, In view OF the
whole evidence, OF such character as
to prejudice the Interests Of the appel
liant The second special charge re.
quested by appellant was properly |
refused; Whatever presumption or
evidence to be drawn from the state |
OF facts propounded In that charge |
being one OF fact, no presumption OF
law could arise from circumstances !
that anlentire shipment, had, In fact, |
arrived at It's destination. The testi--
iuOu1 III Atlt tAHt uuts llUi NhlIulN WIG |
assignment that the verdict Ia
against the law and the evidence
Affirmed.
The Pacific Express Company vs.
Williams, from Tsrrant county. APP
pellee sued In the Justices court TO re-
cover trunk aud contents of the
value OF SlIb So which she alleged
was unjustly detained by appellant
| Suit was filed June II, 1854 Judg-
ment was for plaintiff, and defendant
| (appellant) appealed TO the county
court, which court convened August
3, 1888, and ad onrned August o. 1854,
on which last day the cause was tried
The transcript from the Justices court
showed the defense noted on the
docket rs follows Defendant claims
to hold said trunk because IL was eX-
| pressed to them from st. Louis, &. q.
II. 1897, without any statement show
ing for what plaintiff owed the SlO7,
No account against plaintiff" BY
answer flied In the county court
August -, defendant, setting
out crcumstantialiy the character,
averred that one Minnie Carr OF ST.
Louis shipped the trunk 9. O. ID.
through defendant, aud prayed that
Minnie Carr be made party to the
suit cited etc. Plaintiff moved TO
strike out the answer, because, among
her grounds to permit defendant TO
| interplead and make new parties,
would cause unreasonable delay. The
action of the court sustaining this mo-
ton IL the frat error complained OF.
But held, that the ground alleged In
the motion Is Onerecognized by statute
art. 1909, X. s IL was matter OF
discretion with the court to sus ain or
override the motion, provided that II,
In everything the motion and permit
ting defendant 10 interplead, he would
not thereby cause unreasonable delay
in the trial Of the suit. lWsucb case
rs this the defendant must be held TO
an exercise OF diligence, and III IL was
actually necessary for IL to interplead
Minnie Carr, that could have been
done in the original tribunal, or three
weeks before, in the county court
There was no abuse of judicial diecre.
ton IN this action of the trial court
1t WAS not, however essential TO this
defense thn, Minnie Carr should be
made a party, as under the Issues pre-
sented, the defendant might have
shown, If the acts so warranted, that
the goods Were chargeable with the
amount II was charged 10 collect But
In point Of practice the defendant was
not entitled upon the facts to inter
plead Minnie Carr the bsilor, for 10
entitle n party 10 the relief OF In
terpleader he muat have incurred no
independent liability 10 either OF
the claimants. For rules see P0me-
roy's lGg. Jur., secs. 1926, 1897. IL il
not shown that the court was asked to
find and file in the case liz conclusions
Of law and fact, aud hence objection
will not he considered. Affirmed,
Horn VS.. Pierce, from Dallas county,
Plaintiff sued originally In justice
court by sequestratiOn on claim
stated as follows: Dallas, June ~,
1888 A. NJ. Horn to II. A. Pierce DIR.
: To one bay mare, about l5i hands
) high, about six years old, white star
, in forehead, valued AT $3.50. Plaintiff
sues and prays that he may have judy
ment for the specific property sued for
or the value of same" 1t Ia urged as
error that the court erred in holding
that there WAS any cause OF action,
betau,e the suit was for
money due by note, etc. But held,
that although the claim filed partook
: in a technical shape and form, in some
degree, OF an account, yet IL indicated
: with sufficient clearness that the suit
WAS for the mare, or In default, her
, value. Objection not well taken. 1T
} follows the next proposition of appel.
liant must fall. II IL rs follows: The
court erred in refusing to quash the
= affidavit bond and writ OF sequestra-
ton upon motion, because there was
no action instituted which would
: Justify the issuance OF writ of seques-
tration, See X, s., art. 44SO. The
charge Of the court and the evidence
were sufficient and there was no error
= In refusing new trial. Affirmed.
The Gulf, Cclroado IL Santa l'e Rail
road vs.. York IL Johnson, from Tar.
J rant county. This was suit for dam
ages for cattle lost aud killed by the
negligence Of appellants, who con-
tIscted to transport aud deliver same
at Fort Worth II appears from the
, evidence that the appellant pro missed
TO deliver the cattle in the daytime,
| but were 40 delayed en- route that Fort
| Worth was not reached until after
! night; that the appellants stock pens
mara fnn aKaaIl N hold tba cattle that