Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-25
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 Of the Rulings aud 0pin-
ions Rendered.
compiled for the aareito.

We. Slater, from Travis county. Ap.
pellee sued appellant for loss aud dam
age to baggage. She bought tickets
for herself and children from the agent
of the Erie railway in New York, and
her tickets were recognized by all
connecting lines from New York to
Aus tin. There was no proof that the
loss or damage occurred on the line
OF the appellant, which appellant in-
sists must be made In order to place
liability. The position is not
well taken. The rule is
that when connecting lines
Of railways are operated in conjunc-
ton with each other, sell through pas
senger tickets, give baggage checks
which each recognize, and the paseen-
ger or his baggage is allowed to pass
thereon, without extra charges, each
road becomes the agent of all the
others to transport tie baggage 10 the
place of destination, and is liable to
any damage to or loss of the baggage
without the owner being compelled to
prove when or how the loss occurred.
w. d w. Con. r., sec. POS, 1852, 1858
1t was not, therefore, necessary for the
appellee TO allege and prove the loss
or damage while in appellants possess
sion, or a contract with appellant, or
more than thatth checks and through
ticket given at New York were recog-
nized by appellant To psrtake of the
nature of baggage for the loss
or damage to which an &C.
ton will lie, the articles must
be necessary TO the use and convent
ence of the passenger on the journey
that he is at the time making. A fam
lily portrait, group of photographs, a
meerscbaum pipe and chandeliers are
not such articles of baggage. Re-
versed and Temanded.
The Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Rail-
way company VS.. France, from Dallas
county. Suits against a railway cor
poration may be brought in any coun-
ty through or into which the railroad
OF such corporation is extended or ope-
rated r. ). 1898, sub 2l.). An an.
swer attacking the capacity OF q plain
| tiff TO sue cannot be considered unless
! it be verified by oath. There was no
such pleading In this case, and hence
the surviving child of the original
plaintiff to continue the suit as heirs
| has not been questioned in a manner
authorized by law. Negligence of the
company was properly question for
| the Jury and was not required TO be de-
| fined by the charge. Affirmed.
Lewis VIZ. the State, from Waller
county. The conviction in this case
was for assault with intent TO murder.
| The facts OF the case were, that at
night the defendant detected the
alleged injured party in company with
his daughter about sixty yards distant
from his house, his daughter sitting
and her companion squatting by her.
On discovering the defendant, the in
iured party attempted to induce the
daughter to follow him away from the
place. when the defendant shot him.
The daughter testified that the injured
party had never treated her in other
than gentlemanly manner, and that
she and he were engaged to be mar
ried, There is no evidence tending tc
show that defendant knew OF this Gu
pagement. The theory OF the defense
was that, under the circumstances, the
defendant believed that his daughter
snd the injured party were actually
engaged in fornicaion, or tina
the latter was attempting thu
seduction of the latter, anC
that his passions were so aroused a
to render his mind incapable of coo
reflection. Whether or not the evi
depce was sufficient to establish tina
fact. il should have been submitted Il
the Jury together with charge Ii
effect. that IL defendant did so believe
and his passions were so aroused, an'
in ouch passion he shot the injured
party, he would not be guilty OF as
sault to murder. Reversed and re
manded.
Wakefield VS.. King, from Eli
county. In q collateral proceeding, Tn
only contingency in which the judg
ment of q domestic court OF genera
iurisdictiun which has assumed to &C
in n case over which it might, by Law
take Jurisdiction OF the subject-matte
and the person, Ia when the recon
shows afiirmatively that its juTisdiI
ton did not attach in the particula
case. Under our constitution an
laws, justices courts are treate
with reference to this questio
] "a courts OF general jurisdiction
r Further, this question of jurisdictlo
: must be tried by the reciIals IN tn
' record alone and the presumpho
. arising therefrom. II they fail
= show the want OF Jurisdiction, theI
Q in collateral proceedings upon ground
0 OF public policy, the records p.urporl,
I absolute unity and 10 conclusive.
8 was therefore correct TO exclude !
this case, evidence de hors the recor'
Affirmed.
Jane l.. Turner VS.. Gibson, admi
: traitor, from Parker county. 70 su
upon t'Fo notes, the appellant, d
PENDANT pleaded in effect that whe
: she war the wife Of s., the plaintih
J, (appellee's) interstate, and that the
u we're executed without consideration
5 IL Is insisted In this court that II
i consideration WAS Illegal being col
: trary to public policy, wher
b fore the court below shouI
not have rendered jud
ment on the contract against appt
ami. Held, that when q defendant r
lies upon the jilegality OF q contra
n or that it is against public policy, u
70 answer must state facts showing sue
rs ilIegallty, unless apparent from u
= q L.