Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-10
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopsis Of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting Of the
Court Of Appeals.
Made up From the Full and Official Re.
port os the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered.


Manning VS.. Byrd, from Nolan
county. Appellee In this case, Ms sur.
vivihg widow Of b, sned the appellant
to recover on " note fof S5Ss So. execnl
ted and delivered to plaintiffs intes.
tate. Appellant answered by genera
demurrer, general denial, and especial
ly that the said note was obtained by
means OF false representations and
threats OF vexatious law suits, and was
wholly without consideration; and
thai appellant was not,
when the note was exeeu-
ted or sued. upon, indebted to the APP
pellee In any sum whatever. The an
sweF further set up payment In that
the note represented, not an indebt.
edness from appellant to appellee,
but IN fact the aggregate aiMOunt
OF certain claims left in the hands
OF appellant for collections, which
sums being collected by him were paid
over to appellee. The Jury foand
against the appellant ON the trial, and
such Ending Is supported by the evil
dence. No other question aripln Z
upon the record, the Judgment Ia NJ
firme&
Mike Thomas vs.. the state, from
Jackson county. The appellant in
this case was convicted of the Oflense
OF obstructing the tracks OF IA railway,
as that otlense is defined by artiele BIS
OF the Penal Code, and was awarded a
term OF two years in the penit entiary
as his punishment. II was objected
to the indictment that in giving
the name OF the New Sork
II Texas Mexican raiIroadn W. New
York, Texas u Mexican nailroadn
(misplaeing the CONJUNCTION "and, nthe
Indictment failed properly to identify
the railroad. Held that the objection
ishypercritcal. No errors % mate
rial character are apparent and the
Judgment Is affirmed,
Gulf, Colorado II Santa Re Railway
va. Fields, from Ellis county. In this,
a suit for damages, the sin.ele question
involved Is one of fact. The proof
shows That appellant permitted grass
and weeds to accumulate in considera-
BILE quantities on it's right OF way, at a
poiut near the appellee's land; that
this inilammab,e matter was fred by
sparks from its engine, and that the
flames spread to and consumed about
100 acres OF grass, some stacks OF etraw
and oats and one or two buildings
belonging 10 appellee, and
that this damage resulted
from the negligence of the appellant.
The appellant insists, however, that,
in permitting grass 10 grow around
his stacks OF straw and oats, the APP
pellee was guilty OF contributory neg
ligence Held, that the defense was
not we'll taken. See Railway Va. Tip
petit, decided at this term and reported
in these columns. However, the mp.
pellant could, In no event, be heard TO
complain, inasmuch as the question OF
contributory negligence WAS fully sub
mitted to the jury. Affirmed.
Still, Sr, vs.. Bare foot d Kendall
Appeal bond from the Justices court
having been filed and approved within
ten days, and 80 Endorsed by the JUS
tice, IL was not essential to the suiii.
ciency OF the appeal to the county court
that the transcript should, In addition
TO the Endorsement, show that the
original bond was filed and approved
The objection that the bond IL not
made payable TO the appellees IL
not sustained by the record. The bond
conditions that appellant shall pay of
and satisfy the judgment which shall
be rendered. In the place OF the word
INIT the statute uses the word man.
Held, that these conditions are sub
stantiallv the same, The county
court erred In dismlsslng the appeal
from the Justices court. Reversed
and remanded.