Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-28

that said plaintln's injuries NeIc VNep
stoned or attributable TO the failure OF
defendants employees to ring the bell or
blow the whistle, or by running their en-
zine NJ a greater rate OF speed tnan was
permitted by the ordinances OF said city,
then plaintiff would be entitled TO re-
covert This charge is in accordance
with II. Il. Co. v. Symkins, % Tex. Glb,
which decision has never been questioned
in auy subsequent decision, although
there may be some loose dicta 20 the con-
trary. Affirmed. Opinion by Wilson, j
W. ID. Smith VS. the state, appeal from
Rusk. This prosecution was for selling
liquor IN q lOcpl-optlOn precinct. 1t APP
pears from the statement OF facts that
only three notices OF election were ever
posted up In the JUSTICES precinct before
the election was held. Held, the mean
Ing Of Art. $3.50 X. S., Is that whether the
territory to be affected by the result Of
the election be an entire county, u just
ices precinct, or town or city, FIVE cop
les OF the election order must be posted
up in such territory, and as the evidence
shows that only three were posted, the
conviction Is not sustained. (Ex parte
Kramer present term) Reversed and
dismissed Opinion by Hurt, j.
Joe Lipari VS.. the state, appeal from
Limestone. The petition for an election
for local option was not filed
until the FIST day Of the term
OF the commissioners court at which said
election was ordered, but IL was filed be-
fore said court actually met and convened.
Held, that there Is difference in the
words term" and session A session
signifies the time during the term winch
the court sits for the transaction OF BUSH
ness. The term Of court is the time pre-
scrihed by law during which it may be in
session; and there was error IN ordering
the election at that term.
That The commissioners court ordered
an election to determine whether or not
the sale Of liquor, etc, should be pro-
hibitcd IN Justices precinct to be held
on the same day that the election for the
entire county was held does not affec the
validity of the election held for the
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Wilson, j
Mel Mcintyre VS.. the State, appeal
from Kaufman. judgment nisi, rem
doTed upon IL forfeited bail bond is fatol.
ly defective If it does not state that the
Judgment nlsi will be made final unless
good cause be shown al the next term of
the court why the principal did not APP
pear. This is demanded by the statute
Cart l4l G. c. P.)
1t appears from the body of the bond
that one Mel Mcintyre is the principal.
The bond Is not signed by Mel, unless c.
A. Mcintyre Is the same person. Whether
this is so is not shown by the record.
Held, that from what appears from the
record, c. a. Mcintyre may be surety,
and SO the Judgment is detective, as 1t
makes no disposition as TO him. Reversed
and reminded. Opinion by llnrt, j.
J, e, Merritt VS.. the State, appeal from
Rusk. A sale OF intOXicat-
ing liquor without engaging in
or pursuing the ocCupationoi sell
ing, is not IN act taxable by law,
and 1t is not a violation Of the penal law
to make such u sale without first OBTAIN
ing license. II is the occupation and
not the act of selling which is taxable.
There may be one or more sales and yet
no occupation Of selling, or there may be
without single sale having
been effected, As the Indictment only
charges the act Of selling and not that
the defendant engaged in the occupation
OF selling, 1t Is fatally defective. Reversed
and remanded, Opinion 10y Wilson, j.
Tom Coftelt VS.. the State, appeal from
Brown. In the impeachment OF a witness
proof OF his general reputation for truth
aud yeracity Is not confined to showing
what that reputation is in the ucghbor-
hood where the witness lives at the time
OF the trial, but evidence is admissible to
show what his reputation is in Il neigh
borhood where he formerly lived and
where he Is best known and his character
best established. Sem VS.. State, | ct. !
app, 4s3
Unless brand Is recorded il cannot
furnish evidence of ownership of the ami
NAL, but may be used as evidence OF
Identity And when so used, the court
should instruct the jury for what purpose
they may consider the unrecorded brands. /
For the purpose of establishing the fact
that the witness who tcstihes against him |
Is an accomplish, the defendant cannot
put in evidence the general reputation of |
such witness for honesty. Reversed and
Opinion by Hart, j,
d. ID. Boyd VS.. the state, appeal from |
Navarro. The defendant being on trial
lnder charge of preventing an officer
rom collecting taxes due from him to
The state by force and threats of force, it |
was error to reject evidence offered to
show that the acts and conduct of the de- |
iendant were prompted by a reason or
motive other than an Intention to thwart |
Inc officer in the collection OF the tax. |
Reversed and remanded Opinion by |
Llurt, j.
j j. Mistrotys Texas OH Co, appeal
from Navarro. Where the same party
lcts as the agent of both the parties to
he contract sued on, proof that he made |
alse representations 10 the defendant
,annot be made under general denial. II
constitutes special defense aud should
De specially pleaded; and without such
plea, such proof cannot form The basis OF
Judgment. Hall vs., Jackson, Tex. |
800.
The owner of a patent becomes entitled /
% his royalty whenever hi patent is used
without regard TO the length OF time it is |
lsedi and his right is not affected by the
act that the party SO using the patent
owned the material out of which the ma
'hinery was made, Reversed and re-
handed. Opinion by Wilson, j.