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


based charged everyielement of the Of.
Tense Nv defined In that article and was
sufficient. The evidence upon which
the Jury fined the defendant was, un.
doubtcdiy, conclusive against him.
The charge was unexceptionable, aud
IL not contested upon proper bills oi
exceptions. Affirmed
John Strickland vs., the State, from
Baylor county, This IL an appeal
from Judgment Of conviction rem.
dered upon verdict of Jury based
upon an information charging the APP
pellant with unlawftlly carrying n
pistol. The only error assigned IL that |
the court erred In everything the de-
fendant'P motion for new trial, which |
motion sot up that the verdict WAS con-
trAry 10 the law and the evidC nce-the |
issue being that the evidence does not |
show that the offence was committed |
before the filing of tho Information. |
This ground In no, sustained by the
record. Affirmed. -
Breckenridge VI. Wood, from Taylor
county. Wood, suing on n balance
due on 300 head OF sheep sold by him
TO appellant recovered the sum OF $3.50
OF the amount sued for, 1886. The mp
peal presents no question OF law, aud
thure WAS COZ tl,ct of testimony as 10
the actual num"er OF sheep received
10y Il ~ was The duty OF the Jury,
and the jury alone, 10 pass upon the
evidence AS to Its weight and credi.
bility, and when, even though GOA
illctipg, II Is sufficient to support the
verdiel. this court will not interfere.
To authorize interference In case OF
this kind the Judgment must appear to
A. - la. "A. A AL
G.. +. Holbert VI. the State, from
convicted OF the misdemesnor 0llense
defined by article 40 OF the Penal
Code, inslsts that both tho complaint
aud Information are insuili.
cient to charge the otiense.
IL charged him, In substance, OF
putting into bale OF cotton, u c0mmo.
dity usually sold by weight, soiled and
rotten cotton and meats and trash OF
no value, and that he put II In the said
bale with the intent To deceive and
defraud, and that one ID. a, Bridgea
did there and then sell the said Itton,
Held, sufficient to charge the false
packing OF "A bale OF cotton with intent
to defraud The evidence WAS album
dant To support the conviction. Az
firmed.
West VIZ. Thomson Il Co., from
Travis county. This was a suit 10 re-
cover 1851 paid on contract FOR an
engine and appliances. There was
some ambiguity In the contract ne 10
the ime that the goods were to be de.
livered and II wab not error To admit
parol evidence to explain this amhlgu-
ity, and, besides, the plaintiffs had In
troduced evidence to explain the In
tentlon of the parties to the contract.
The deiendanL's plea In reconvontlon,
which was specially excepted TO,
was not recognized IN, the Judgment,
that IL, the court found against II, and,
hence, no Injury was done plaintiff by
everything the special exceptions. The
answer presenting good defense, the
general demurrer thereto was properly
overruled, The evidence IA to n breach
OF the contract by the defendants was
conflicting, and there was ample EVIL
dence 10 show waiver OF such breach
| IL there had been breat h. and there
was evidence also OF facts which would
constitute an estoppel against plain
| titis. Affirmed.
The Missouri Pacific Railway Conn
pany W.. Dodson, from TarraDt county,
Appellee sued the railway company
In Justices court for $3.50 damages re-.
sulting to his growing crop OF wheat
and barley, which was partially de.
| stroyed by cattle through the negli-
gence OF the company In failing To
construct proper cattle-xuards AT the
| point where the road entered nppellees
| field Judgment was rendered In ap-
pellee's favor for the amount claimed,
costs, etc There IL no question Of
| law involved In the case, and the evil
dence is ample to sustain the alleRa-
| ton OF damage and To establish the
negligence OF the appellants. AZ
| lirmed.
Martha Mack Va. tho state, from
Jt lierson county. The conviction in
this case WAS based upon An indlct-
ment which charged the appellant
with au assault with intent to murder
one Wilmington. M objection IL
urged TO the Indictment, but IL Is earn
estly insisted 10y counsel for the de-
| fenfc that the verdict Ia without sup
port In the evidence, The evidence,
however, disclosed that the Injured
party went with u constable under
summons TO levy u writ NJ pOssts.ion
on piano and that hc was assaulted
with u deadly weapon In such a man
ner that, had death eusued, she would
| nave been guilty. q murder Helu,
that such evidence was suttcient.
| Affirm ed. .........
Lasker VA Gay, from Robor tsun
county. THIS was suit brought In
Robertson county by the appellee for
rent. The appellant pleaded his reel
dence la Galveston county aud hiH
privilege to loo sued In Galveston
county. But the contract being pei-
formable in Robertson county the suit
was properly brought In that county,
The evidence shows that the appellant
guaranteed the rent under his arm
name of Iie Grerso q CO., and likes
hi, liability. There was no error In
the Judgment and II Is affirmed
I.aub VA. OliphRnt n Kelso, from
Maverick county, The motion Of the
appellees filed In this case seeks 10
have the appeal dismissed upon the
grounds, frat That no assignments
OF error were liled In the case ss re-
| quired by law, and second, that no
briefs for the appellant we'e filed IN
! the trial court ut least ten days before
the frat day OF the assignment 10
| A.. a. l.I