Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-01
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 and 0pin-
ions Rendered.
COMPLIED for the Gazette.

NhTutE w. bhH bDghLof iiNAA Schh'Nh
county. The appellant in this case
was convicted of an aggravated assault
and battery, and his punishment was
affixed at q fine of S25. The record
brings up neither statement OF facts
nor bills of exception. In such condi-
ton OF the record this court can only
inquire into the suiliciency of the in
formation, which in this case, charg-
ing all Of the elements Of the onense,
il sufficient; the correctness of the
charge of the court as an abstract
enunclation Of legal propositions, and
the regularity of the proceedings. In
these respects the record discloses no
error, and the judgment must be af-
firmed.
Byers vs.. the State, from Fort Bend
county. The appellant in this case
was convicted OF the theft Of mare,
and he WAS awarded by the jury p
term OF five years in the penitentiary.
There being no statement OF facts in
the record, the rule announced in War
ren's case, supra, applies. But the
charge OF the court Is complained OF
under the following circumstances: A
former trial of the appellant at the
pending term of the court, upon the
same indictment, resulted in disagree
ment of the Jury. Instead of writing
new charge, the trial Judge took the
charge submitted on the former trial
from the papers In the former case,
erased the caption 80 far as ii recited
the former term, and inserted the trial
term. Held, that the charge present
ing the law OF the case, as applied TO
the evidence, was sufficient. AT
firmed.
Roach vs.. House, from Kinney
county. This Is motion of the APP
pelIee to affirm the judgment of the
court below as upon certificate. tap.
pears, however, upon inspection, that
the judgment rendered in the court
below was for less than 500. Over
such al amount this court has no ju-
risdiction, and hence the motion cam
not he entertained. Certificate dis
missed.
Dangan Va. the Pullman Palace Car
Company, from Dallas county. On
motion for rehearing. A synopsis of
the original opinion on the original
hearing of this case, rendered at a pre-
vious day of the present has
been heretofore published in the col.
umns of THE GAZETTE. This motion
for rehearing presents no questions
which were overlooked on the original
hearing, but seeks only to bring in re-
view the questions as then passed
upon. The result of such reconsidera-
ton is to confirm the court in the
| opinions reached on the original hear
! ing. The motion Is refused.
Robertson Va the State, from
BOsque county. The conviction in
this case was had under an informa-
ton which charged the appellant
with refusing to work the public roads,
and his punishment was affixed at u
fine OF five dollars. The principal OBJ.
lection is urged to the suiliciency of
the information to charge the otlense.
1t charges every constituent element
Of that offense as il Is defined by the
statute, and, hence, is sufficient. The
weight of the evidence and the
credibility Of the witnesses were
questions alone for the disposition of
the jury, and the record shows II
sutiicency to sustain the verdict.
Affirmed.
Mahle vs.. Grierson ct al. from Pre-
sidio county. The appellant sued for
damages arising from trespass upon his
, uninclosed land, destruction OF grass
and shooting off firearms, whereby
his cattle were frightened from their
accustomed range, occasioning plain
tifl additional trouble and expense In
gathering and herding them. The
Judgment WAS against plaintiff, and
ne Insists that, upon the proof, he was
entitled to nominal damages, at least
The proof showed that defendants
were uuck shooting in a buggy; tina
defendants drove over the land OF the
plaintiff once or twice to pond or
plaintiffs land, and fired severa
shots at time when no cattle were IL
sight, and that the grass on the Liant
was of that character that csttl
would not eat it when they coulC
get any other. 1t was also shown tina
plaintiff had advertised against tres
passing upon his premises, and warne
, the defendants on that day to desis
which they did not do. Held, this
the evidence brings the case With
| the rule laid down in Field on Dam
z 6Sl.2, that there are cases, however
/. of such triiling injury that no actio
can be maintained therefor. The la'
will afford no remedy to useless an
> malicious llJlgAUSu' lie nlulmlS no
= carat lex, is,the MAXIM. Affirmed
n Ezsll n Suggs Va. Edwards ct al
from Milan county. This 8 motto
{, filed in this court by the appellee [
. strike out the appellants bill of e,
/. ceptions, the ground OF the motto
,f being that the said bill of exception
" was not filed within ten days after II
" motion for new trial was overruled,
.e required by law. This ground is N,
N sustained by the record. The motto
20 for new trial was overruled in II
lower court on the tenth day OF Fe
~ ruary, and the bill OF exceptions WI
" filed on the seventeenth day of Il
ia same month. A little careful con
20 putation will demonstrate the lmpo
sibility OF crowdiag ten days into I'll
Oh period elapsing between the tenth an
seventeenth days of month. NJ
ton overruled.
The Missouri Pacific Railway Cor
n pauy vs.. Scott, from Bell count
n This was u motion filed by the a
n pellee, asking the court TO dismiss Il
be writ of error, II Ia essential to Il
x perfection of a writ of error to tn
&c court that the citation in error shs