Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-01

honestly made by plaintiff. IL the
actual cost Of the horses was the price
actually agreed upon, the defendants
right TO an abatement OF the amount
of his note in case IL was given on the
mistaken representation OF the cost of
the horses, cannot be affected by the
fact that plaintiff knew or did not
know his representation to be false
when he made II; or that he made II
with intention to deffaud. 1t would
then be construction fraud, against
which defendant was entitled to pro-
lection. According to the terms
OF such sale, the representation
as TO what was the cost OF the horses
would amount to warranty that the
amount stated was correct, and II il
was not so, the defendant would not
be liable for the excess over the true
amount of the cost as calculated to mis-
lead the jury; the charge was error.
Reversed aud remanded,
The G., II. o. n w, r.. Co, VS..
Hancock, from Ellis county. Ten
thousand dollars actual and $4,000 ex-
emplary damages were awarded
plaintiff lsppellee) in an action
against defendant for personal Djuries.
The exemplary damages were remit
led. To the dispositions assailed, 1t
was objected that the signature to the
postmHs,er's certificate did not show
that The per4on signing 1t was post
master; that II the initials p. Nj. We're
sufficient for that purpose, they did
not show at what office he was post.
master. The Endorsement was Re
ceived this package from the hands of
M NJ fAraU alApl thn AfA hafnFn
whom the deposition was taken, q.
! S. Smith, p. M The postmark on
the envelope was "Woodberry, Tenn :,
July 81 j" Fhe certificate is held sufli.
cient. Certain remarks of the counsel
for the plaintiff, in argument, are as.
signed as error. The court remarks:
SIN our opinion, the largest liberty of
discussion should be allowed to trials
before juries, 8 long as the legiti-
mate objects of the discussit n
are kept in view. In the
trial OF cases involving, as they
generally do, the most important
interests, the duties of jurors require
moderation, calmness and high
sense of rectitude, and in such trials
every thing which appeals TO preju-
! dice or kindles animosity between
different classes OF men must be re-
garded as prejuuicial to the administra-
ton Of justice. Oar courts of last re-
sort are accustomed to pay defsfence
to verdicts when there is reason to b p
lieVe that they are the result OF the
calm and deliberate conviction of the
Jury, and this is so even when the
court may think the verdict larger or
smaller than ii ought to he. But when
the verdict il abnormal, and circum-
stances have occurred ut the trial
which may have suddenly influenced
the action of the jury, the court will
not hesitate to set it aside.N The
verdict in this case may have been
Brought about by the improper re-
marks of counsel to the jury, and
therefore the judgment is reversed
and the cause remanded.
In re estate of Horn, deceased,
from Taylor county. In substance
this is the case : The administrator
OF the estate OF deceased, who left, be
sides his homestead occupied by his
surviving wife and children, another
house which was never occupied by
him rs q part of the homes I'd or as D
business place, made report to the
county court of the condition of the es
tate and asked an order of court to sci
| llC aNAulllOhdl uOuHt W pay lllt utbli
against the estate, and because IL was
uninsurable and peculiarly liable to de
struction by fire, which order of sal,
was granted, and the homestead sci
aside to the family. This was at tn,
February term, 1884 At the succeed
ing July term, Il succeeding county
Judge after citing the administrator
made an order revoking the said order
OF sale and set aside the additional
house as u part OF the homestead
upon the ground that the homestta al
previously set apart was not of the
value of $500 The district court on
appeal affirmed this action. But
held, that the question as to how fAl
a county judge may, OF his own mo
ton, alter and set aside the DEGREES o
his predecessor, made upon applica
tion OF an administrator, has not keeI
decided. In this case, however, tbs
county judge erred in making tn,
order complained of. AS genera
rule, the family take the homestead
as the deceased left it, and that rul,
applies in this case, because the RECORD
indicates nothing peculiar in this es
tate. Reversed and remanded.
} Reeves VS. Lindsey, from Jack coun
ty By deed with general warranty
giving metes ana BOUNDS, but not tho
number of acres, the appellant sold t.
appellee large tract OF land in J
county. The agent who drew tn,
deed included 800 acres which did no
belong to the appellant and which
were secured from appellee Appel
liant being called upon to defend tn,
title, admitted that he never owned
the lana, and alleged that he had never
intended to convey it, but had done 81
through mistake. Such defense can
not avail; the alleged mistake was
nothing more than culpable negligence,
on the part of the appellant and hii
agent. 1t was admitted by appellant
that he had the deed in his house fol
two weeks before signing it, and thai
he did not read it. No blame car
therefore attach to appellee, who acted
upon the representations of the appel
lants agent Affirmed
Ussery VIZ. SnOdgrass, from Falls
| county The parties To the p1ntTo