Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-08

puted locus In quo. Evidence had also
been introduced showing appellee's
continued possession, occupation claim
OF rlght, improvements, e'c. Appel
liant had then under his plea Of not
guilty introduced his evidence of title,
and OF the matters In controversy and
closed. IL Is claimed that the evidence
objected to was not strictly In rebuttAl,
But held, that the evidence was prop
erly, under an authorized liberal cou-
struciion OF art, 1897 II. 5 rehutting
evidence, and was properly admitted.
Again, whether 20 or not, the court,
under art. 1908, had the right to admit
the same. Greenleaf on Evidence, !
vol (Redfield's ad.) sec. 496 (a) lays
down the rule as to the proper order
OF admitting evidence. The evidence,
though meager, supports the finding
OF the jury. Affirmed.
Texas Il Pacific Railway vs.. Menda-
ries, from Parker county. In this
state the husband may sue alone for
the recovery OF any separate property
belonging 10 the wife, and as well to
recover damages occAsioned by inju-
ries to the same. In this case the evi
dence clearly showed that the title to
the land was In Mira. Nj, and it was
not necessary for the court to more
than instruct the jury as To the prin-
ciples of law applicable TO the contested
issues. The destruction by fire OF both
the grass and fence was clearly shown
and also that the fire was occasioned
| by escaping sparks from appellants
engines 1t not negligence per Sc,
in n railroad company TO permit grass
and weeds to grow upon its right of
way, In the absence of statute re
quiling them TO be removed
Nor Is the fact that sparks
may escape from al engine, negll
gence per &c. Railway companies, TIL
same as natural pereons, are required
TO use their property as not to neces
sarily ipjurs that Of others But IL
the operation of trains, ETC., they ar
required to exercise that degree of pru
dence, which under like circumstance
a prudent man would exercise. Tn
charge in this case rather favored tn
appellant and cannot be compliance
OF. In this case the measure OF dam
ages was the value OF the fence an
grass destroyed. The jury afflrme
the negligence OF the company, an
their verdict throughout is supporte
: by the evidence. Affirmed
Robinson ct al Vi. D1uthit ct a
See 55 Tex SO for former report of tn
case, wherein 1t WAS held that the dee
from ID. to his sou p. was not void.
became necessary on the trial to Local
: certain tree called for on the dee,
> and proof was admitted TO show TIN
> when the deed was made, in order
enable the conveyancer to describe u
: LAND intended To I've conveyed, u
grantor pointed out certain elm ire
!, from which the western line was To
!, run north and south, and the witne
II stated the act and declarations of Il
3 grnntor nt the time the deed was cx
u cntcd, and identified the tree referr'
o to by the grantor. The objection W
u in substance that the subsequent pu
70 chasers from the defendant had !
i knowledge at the time of the acts al
j. declarations of the defendant
e. grantor, and hence the evidence W
n inadmissible. The objection was N
u we'll taken. The sole inquiry WA
le Did the grantor refer TO certain tree
10 his declarations and was the de
u made with reference to his declal
"a tions. | Greenl. los; 1873 Defendar
OF proposed TO prove that prior To u
AS deed to his son, through whom app
es Ices claim he had executed trust dc
C. on the land tosecure adebt, which "
1e duly recorded, under which the la
or was sold prior to the purchase unt
10 which appellants claim, and tina
oil third person bought, which u
ey WAS reacqulred by ID. II
., evidence was objected to
u appellees that the deed from d. to
IL con was q warranty through VIII
p. they claimed that the after-acquil
nd title to their fathers grantor inu
d, to their benefit by reason OF the "
as ranty. The court properly sustain
ed the objection, for whenever and h!t
Vi ever ID. obtained title through the !
It's existing at the time he made the "
EN- ranty deed to his son, the same inu
ID, to make his warranty good. Matt
lie love and affection was sufficient G
* sideration to sustain the conveya
to between d. and his son. Affirmed
yet