The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-07
THE HIGHER COURTS.
COURT OLE APPEALS.


sureties. On trial before the justice
Morris recovered judgment against
Cobb and his sureties on the replevy
bond for the damages sued for aud
costs. Cobb and his suretles appealed
TO the county court, and Jointly, as
principals, executed an appeal bond,
with suretles, aud conditioned as tho
law requires, which bond was approved
by tho Justice. IN the county
court the appeal was dismissed
upon motion Of appellee, because the
sureties upon the replevy bond had
joined In tho appeal bond az principals,
and because of mlsdeacription Of tho
| judgment appealed from. Held: AS the
judgment was rendered against the sure
ties upon the replevy bond, they had
the right TO join in the appeal therefrom
and 1t was proper that they should join
with their principal in the appeal bond.
(Rev. stat. art. 1851 Reversed and re
manded.
G. w. Parsons OF al. VS.. r. o. Craw-
ford, from Dallas county; Wilson, ].
| Crawford sued Parsons ann Grimmet in
JUSTICES court Of precinct No. 7, Dallas
county, before NJ Myers, justice of the
peace of said precinct, 'up0n
an account for $3.50 for trespass to
private property, to wit: The uni awful
driving OF the plaintiffs mule from its
rang o, keeping IL in pen and compell-
| ing IL to jump fence and break its leg
from the effects of which il died. (This
statement Of plaintiffs cause of action
is copied from the Justices Transcript
CraW ford obtained Judgment for 800
and costs. Parsons and Grimmet APP
pealed to the county court, and in thor
appeal bond described the judgment as
follows: "On the 9th day OF November,
1883, in Justices court in said county,
precinct No. Z, NJ. Myers, j. p., prosid-
ing, II. o. Crawford, plaintiff, recovered
Judgment against q. w. Parsons and
James Grimmet, defendants, upon an
account or $3.50 for trespass to private
party, to wit: The unlawful
driving the plaintiffs mule from its
range, Keeping it in pom and compel
ling IL to jump a fence and break its
leg, from the effects of which it died.
Account filed September %, 1888" In
the county court, ON motion of appellee,
the appeal was dismissed, upon the
ground that tho description OF the judg-
mont IN tho appeal bond, rs above re-
cited, was incorrect and insufficient.
Held: When we consider tho bond, in
connection with the Justices transcript,
we lind they correspond with each other
that the bond does not state
the amount of the Judgment It
states the amount and nature OF plain
till - demand; that Is an account Of $3.50,
etc, the date of the filing of said account,
ana these statements are verified by the
transcript, IL states correctly the names
OF the parties to the suit, the date of the
Judgment and in what court il was rem
dered. There is no difficulty in identi-
tying tho Judgment described in the
bond, with that set out i'm the transcript
OF tho Justice. IL was not necessary that
the bond should state the amount of the
Judgment when IL otherwise described
1t with reasonable certainty. wv. a. W.,
Con. Rep, sections 1858, I07, i0S, SIG, 1896;
Christian VS.. Crawford, 90 TeXas.) Re- |
yersed and remaud0d.
Ben Potter w. the State; from Hays
county. Conviction for robbery of |
Sarah Fuller. Charge of court not OK
copied to and not materially erroneous. |
Evidence direct and amply sufficient. |
Newly discovered evidence not sup |
ported by aihdavits and 30 good reason |
shown why atiidavits were not OBJ
tained, Affirmed.
Eliio Jaramillo VS. the State; from
Live Oak county. Conviction OF MUIR
der in the first degree, with life pen
atty assessed. Indictment, charge and
evidence all sufficient. No error is APP
parent in the conviction. Affirmed.
Fort Worth & Denver City rail. |
road VS. |. W. Gibson, from Montague
county. Negligence Of a railroad COM
nany in allowing sparks 10 be emitted |
from engine may be proven by circum-
stan ial evidence. Evidence that other
engines "a other times threw sparks as
far aud that they created other fires at
al ia
hrmed.
Missouri Pacific railroad VS.. Homer
Smooti from Denton county. Suit for
killing ca tile. The evidence not show
ing that tho animals were killed ut a
public crossing but near such crossing,
and there being no proof that appellant
could not have fenced its track at that
place, II was unnecessary to prove negli-
genco on the part OF the railroad, Az
urmod.
Christi Schroeder VS. tho State; from
BeXr county. Conviction for INSIDE
meanor, aggravated assault and rob-
berry. Punishment assessed at fine
OF Sl,OCO and II months Imprisonment
In tho county Jail, The information is
sufficient. Evidence ample to sustain
verdict and Judgment is affirmed.
Dallas Clark VS.. J. A. ~ Il. Moore;
from Denton county. Tho transcript i'm
this case not properly being returned at
this torn, the court below having I'D
iourned too late to perfect the appeal to
this term, tho certificate IL dismissed.
Il. G.. Ord Va. Il. NJ. Tillman, from
Dallas county. Delaney, j. Adopted.
There Is no statement OF facts I'm the
record, the paper which is called a state
ment not having been signed by the
judge. ThorO Is In the record bin Of
exceptions taken 10y defendant, but il
does not set out the evidence to which
objection is made (Rule 80, Dist. Ct.)
and as the pleadings of the plaintiff,
though open To criticism, are vet sufli.
ciert TO support the Judgment, 1t ia af-
tirmed.
Bowser & Lemmon VS.. Bent Mitchell
u al, from Dallas county; Delany, !.
Adopted. IL, In this case, we leave out
OF Wow the mortgage which was exc
cuted some time fter the delivery of
the property 20 the defendants, II will
resemble almos exactly the case OF
Cobb vs., Tufts, (reXas Law Roview.)
The two contracts are nearly alike, and
are 10 he regarded as conditional sales.
In tho case of Cobb Va. Tufts, the prop
erty, after delivery TO the defendant,
was destroyed by fire, and then suit
was brought upon the note. IL was
held that plea of failure of considera-
ton should have been sustained. But,
appellants insist that byimeans Of the
mortgage the parties changed the char.
acter Of tho contract; that
IL, II became an eNecutOry contract,
aud the title TO the property
passed to appelloes. This would he In
accordance with the case of Griffith vs..
Morrison (5S Texas, i6l. But We are
confronted with several difficulties. Tho |
parties 10 the mortgage are not tho
same AZ the parties TO the sale. As the
note is endorsed In blank by the pay
eis we can readily account for its pos. |
session by appellants, But the mort |
gage Is given by only part Of the maxi |
era Of the notei and what Is worse still |
tho mortgage docs not mention tho note |
or purport 10 bO giVou for its security. |
II must be mentioned also that the evi- |
donco offered by the plaintiffs Is meager |
and unsatisfactory. Affirmed.
Bowsor & Lennon va. Bent. Mitchell |
OF al, from Dallas county Delaney, ], |
~.