The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-03-05
THE HIGHER COURTS.
cnrRr OLE AppEALs.

OOlhl UT ar hAhSs
Lott VS.. the State, from johnson coun-
ty. Opinion by White, p. ], on rehear-
ing. Where the indictment charges
burglary by force alone in the night
time, the charge of the court should be
confined to a burglary committed In
that and no other way. Where the
charge in the indictment is burglary by
force alone, threats or fraud have moth
ing 10 do with the offence, and the court
should not inform the jury that a bur
glary could be committed in any other
way than as charged in the indictment.
While the court erred In charging the
Jury on the law, yet had 1t been cor
rected in its application to the facts, IL
would not have been reversible error.
Reversed and remanded.
Whitman Agricultural company VS.,
Voss; from Harris county. Opinion by
White, p. j. Where the transcript sent
up by the Justice Of the peace showed
that two appeal bonds had been illed,
one of which had been rejected, and al
| tor giving his reasons for rejecting the
first appeal bond in the transcript the
Justice SAYS; "New bond was brought
and approved September 3d." Held
The recital of approval in the transcript
was sufficient to show the approval
OF the same as though 1t had beer
endorsed and filed on the bond itself. II
the bond be fled it Is sufficient with
out the formal endorsement of approval
If the bond be approved the filing vii
be presumed. Appellant was entitled
to have the Justice file and approve thu
bond nunc pro tune and the court be
low erred in overrulling tho motion Il
that effect. Reversed and remanded.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railroad
company VS.. Skeets, from Brazorli
county. Where the transcript does no
show that objections to the sufliciency
of tho citation and service were made Il
the Justice court, they cannot be mad
for the first time in the county courl
Defects of this character must b
availed of in the Justice court or the.
will be considered waived, Affirmed.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe railroad
company VS.. Hit; from Harrison couu
ty. The questions raised and insisted
on tor reversal of this cause being th
same as those raised and determined il
the recent case of railway company w
Patterson, that case determines the de
cison in this case, Affirmed.
Ii mes vs.. Holland; from Washingtol
county. Opinion by Hurt, j., on roheal
ing. IL is not reversible error for tn
county court to refuse to give an.
charge at all to the jury in case on ar
peal from u justice court, but when re
nuested TO give charge embodying tn
law applicable to tho case, it is revers
bic error to refuse sam(
This suit was brought upon an orde
gwen by the appellant to the appelleC
which was claimed to have been oil
tanned by fraudulent representations Z
the appellee to the appellant at tho tim
the order was obtained The appolan
requested the court to instrdct the jur
MS to the law governing in such casei
which the court refused to do, giving a
a reason that he was not required {
give any charge at all. Hold reversible
error. Reversed and remanded.
Missouri Pacific Railroad company v
York, from Harris county, Opinion b.
White, p. j. Where goods are shippe
as freight the shipper shall use no frau
or artilice to deceive the carrier whereof
his risk Is increased or his care and "
gilence lessoned. II there is any sue
fraud or cOncealment II will exempt tn
carrier from liability under the coutrac
Of shipment. There Ia q distinction
made between money carried rs lreigl
and rs baggage. What may be leglt
matoly considered baggage depend
to great extent upon the cii
cumstances of each indiYiduG
case; upon the length of the journey
the purpose for which It is made; "a
position in life and occupation of tn
traveller; tho mode of conveyance an,
the character of country through whic
he has to pass. Anything may bo col
ried as baggage which passengers usu
ally carry Tor their personal use, CON
fort cClVOnionce instruction or aulusC
ment, having regard 10 me clrenlnstal
be liable for money contained In trunl
not exceeding an amount usually ca
ried for travelling expenses. Affirmed