Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-12-18
TUE HIGHER COURTS.

synopsis " Deowiuns Rendered az III,
rJior SiHina "f tho Court OF Appeals,
So Paul Insurance Company vs.. Archi.
nan N hcll appeal from McIonnan In
the contract OF insurance against fire Of
the mousse insured In was stipulated that,
"li any change takes place In the posscg.
sion, whether by voluntary act or Other.
wise, this policy shall be void. - The
sheriff OF the county made levy upon n
stock OF goods etc, ia the house and had
possession nc the time the fire occurred
Held, that while the stipulation NAV be
unreasonable and even outrageous, vet IL
Is part OF the contract and not being
impossible, Illegal, immoral or against
public policy or for any other reason
void, IL Is binding and the assured cannot
recover. Reversed and rcmandcd. Opln-
ion lay Hurt, j.
Miller & English vs.. Sims Bros, an
peal from Navarro. The lot of Sims
Bros, on which they had and were on.
Grating gin and mill, WAS levied upon
by Miller English for the dekt of
another person. The levy was made hy
simply indorslng n upon the writ. Tho
olllccr and agent of the plaintiffs IN the
executions told Sims Bros. that they
could not run the mill aud gin. They,
~ consequence, abandoned IL ana bring
this suit 10 recover damages for profits,
etc, while the min was Idle Held, the
eDcct OF the levy was not to Dust or dis
possess the owner, IL being a levy upon
real estate, and so, there being no tres.
pass, no damages were recoverable. Re.
verscd aud remandcd. OpipiOa by
Hurt, j.
w. y. ward vs., the State, appeal from
Medina. Juror upon his vOlr dire
stated al have talked 10 Witnesses about
this case; have strong opinions rs 10 dc.
iendanCs guilt or innocence; have ex-
pressed those opinions; IL would take
good, positive and conclusive evidence OF
truthful men 10 change my opinion, but
his opinions would not influence bis yer.
dict" Held, that the juror WAS clearly
Incompetent, and the court erred IN re-
iusing defendants challenge for cause
Tho opinion IN Rothchldis case cited ia
terms Of eNtrayagant praise.
There being evidence tending 10 show
that defendant WINS temporarily insane,
produced by excessive use Of intoxicating
liquors, IL was error 20 charge that insan-
ity TO be defense must be caused by the
"immOdcrate and continuous use OF in
toXicaling liquors fOr II long time before
lNt tNllullhHlNH Oh llt tfluet IOf NUch
period could not IN reason be said TO be-
recent" Under the act 81 February ! Z
1881, neither insanity nor drunkenness "
either be produced alone from recent use
OF drink, viii be a defense; but, on
the other hand though, If there be recent
use, II the defendant had long aud con-
tlnnously used Intoxicating liquors aud |
that this long and continued use, aided 10y /
recent use, rendered him insane, such In
sanity would be a defense. Reversed /
and remaDded. Opinion by Hurt, j.
Missouri Pacific Railway Company W.
$. A. Owens, appeal from hlcLcnnau.
An abandoned, Inconsistent plea cannot
be admitted IN evidence against the
dcicndent as confession Of record, 20
prove an issue made by the general
denial. This, under our system OF plead
ing, Is not allowed, as the defendant may
plead a. many matters Of defense as he
may choose, and II does not matter that
the pleas are Inconsistent.
That certain railway was constructed
by certain company may be proved by
the acts and declarations Of the officers
and agents engaged In its constructions,