The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-21
HIGHER COURTS.
gEzgEcouRr OF APPEALS.


tine county. The motion to strike this
cause from the docket is based on the
ground that the case is properly return
able TO the Tyler branch of this court,
and there is no proper order or applica-
ton of the district attorneyito have the
cause transferred to this branch, the
Same having been filed more than 20
days after the adjournment Of the court
Tor the term, which motion being sus-
tanned by the record, the cause Is striok-
ON from the docket.
Grsgg& Drury We. the State, from
Taylor county. 1t being well settled
that this court has no jurisdiction to
hear and determine cases wherein no
notice OF appeal is given In the court be-
low and duly entered upon the minutes
OF the court, and such fact docs not af-
tirmatively 30 appear in the transcript.
Appeal dismissed.
Dow, Burnett OF al. VS.. the State, from
Medina county. The motion to dismiss
| this appeal Is made on the grounds Of
the misdescriptlon of the writ of error
bond, in that the condition required by
law Ia that plaintiff in error shall prose-
cute his writ with effect, whereas this
bond Is conditioned that Dow Bond
shall prosecute this writ, when there is
no such party TO tho record as Dow
Bond. Tho record, however, disclosing
no such mlsdescription, the motion is
overruled.
Scarborough vs.. Powell, from Scurry
county. The several grounds OF the
motion to dismiss In this cause being
unsupported by the record, and the
transcript appearing TO be in all res
poets correct and the brief OF counsel
being properly filed, the motion is over
ruled.
Bruton vs.. the State; from Jack
county. Defendant was convicted OF
unlawIully disturbing the peace, and
appealing from this judgment OF con-
viction executes recognizance which
recltes the offence of which he was con.
victed as that Of disturbing the peace
which Is an offence unknown 10 the
laws. The recognizance is, therefore
insufficient. Appeal dismissed.
Potts VS.. Thompkins; from Jones
county. Where there Is no assignment
OF errors in the transcript and the same
Is not endorsed as required by the rules
and no brief Ia properly fled by appel
liant IN the court below as required by
law, the appeal will be dismissed.
Warren VS.. the State; from Maverick
county. In order for this court to &C.
quire jurisdiction Of an appeal, the re-
cord must aflirmatively show that O
notice OF appeal was duly and properly
given at the proper stage in the pro
ceedings i'll the court below, and that
such order was entered upon the
minutes of the court. Appeal dis
missed.
Morris VS.. the State; from Callahan
county. Appellant was tried and con,
victed for the offence denounced by Art
600, Z. g., as amended by the act OF
April 4, 1881, (aots II Leg. p lO3). The
recognizance describes tho offence as
that of unlawfully herding sheep, which
is held 20 be insufficient as not naming
any offence known to the law. Appeal
dismissed.
Harrison VS.. the State; from Jones
! county. In addition TO the grounds
| upon which the appeal was dis missed In
the case OF Warren VS.. State supra the
appeal in this case is also dismissed,
because theresis no recognizance in the
record, this being an indispensable re.
| quislte to the jurisdiction of this court.
| Appeal dis missed.
Harrison VS.. State; from Brown
! county. A necessary and indispensable
requisite element Of recognizance is
that IL recite the condition to abide the
judgment OF tho court Of appeals. The
omission Is fatal to the suiiiciency Of a
recognizance or appeal bond. Appeal
| dismissed.
Lamb VS.. Oliphant & Kolso; from
Maverick county. There being no as.
| Segment Of errors in this record such
as viii give this court jurisdiction, that
is such as Is required by Art. 1887
Rev. Stat, the motion to dismiss the
appeal must be and is sustained. Ap-
peal Dismissed.
Texas q Pacific railroad VS.. Dyer;
from Palo Pinto county. Where the
Transcript recites that the motion for a
new trial TO which defendant excerpts
and gives notice Of appeal TO court of
appeals, tho same is simply docket
entry, and the same not appearing on
the minutes OF the court, no proper no.
tice Is given. Appeal dismissed.
King &c nj VI. Frazier; from Jack
county. This court will nos go behind
the clerks certificate, and where he
certilies that the transcript contains all
the proceedings In the case, a motion To
dismiss the appeal because the trans
cript does not contain all the proceed
ings will be overruled.
Harrison VS.. the State; from Jones
county. This appellant being con-
victod ola simple assault, it was neces.
sary for him 10 give recognizance In
order to give this court Jurisdiction,
and the record herein showing no recog-
nizanoe, this court is without jurlsdic-
ton. Appeal dismissed.
railroad Company vs.. Dyet; from
Palo Pinto county. AS condition prec-
| edent to the presentation of an appeal TO
this cause 1t must appear from tho
record that a motion for new trial was
mazda and nUnrrmInH uNH VNANfna ~ 40,
peal given In the lowor court, and that
such motions and proceedings were
duly entered Of record. Tho transcript
IN this case not ailirmatively showing
this the appeal is dismissed.
International & Great Northern rail
road VS.. Charles SRuls; from William
son county, In suits for damages for
the destruction OF grass or fences, the
relief must only DO the compensation
Tor tho loss sustained. In this case the
evidence clearly shows that the iudg.
mont rendered was $l3l.60 more than
should have been rendered. The judg-
ment is, therefore, reversed, and here
rendered for S56S.i0 at the costs of the
appellee. Reversed and rendered.
SUPREME COURT.
Q. q. Wideranders OF al. VS.. the State;
from Burnett county. Stayton, ]. AL.
| NAANAhA WV NNAAeAiAhhlNh klNNh
courts jurisdiction over the subject
matter of oschoats, that Jurisdiction can
only be called into exercise In given
case In the manner or method pre-
soribed by the legislature, and without
tho filing of petition by the proper
officer substantially In accordance with
the requirements Of the statute, this
Jurisdiction can not be legally exer-
cised.
The failure 10 give the notice by pub
LEGATION, as required by Art.,3,666, Pas.
Dig, In cases OF esoheat, requires a judg-
ment rendered escheating property, TO
be reversed, for without such notice the
court has no Jurisdiction. While not
strictly proceeding In rem, II has
many OF It's characteristics, but the stat
ute does direct seizure OF the thing, AZ
In some cases has been held necessary
| To auDnOrt n INDIGNANT atriotlv In NON,