The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-05-06

piiNAo 1OA pSbu
VIM. Moehring VS.. James Hall, from
Guadalupe county; submitted on briefs
for both PARTIES.
w. r. Wiseman vs. Mary A. Baylor ct
al, from Wilson county; submitted on
briefs for both parties.
R. H. Innis ct al. VS.. j. W. Campbell,
from Caldwell county; submitted on briefs
and oral arguments of both parties.
ON. Koepsal ct al. va. John Allen ct al,
f'om Guadalupe county; submitted on
b iefs for both parties.
g. H. & S. A. R'y. Co. VS.. Charles Por-
fert from Bexar county; set for May IL.
G. II. & S. A. Ry Co. VS.. Francis l..
Stealey ct al, from Bexar county; set for
May IL.
Hord d Dignowity VS.. Placldo Olivarry,
from Bexar county; submitted on briefs
of both parties.
Hord d Dignowitty VS.. A. 2. Rivas.
from Bexar. county; submitted on briefs
of both parties.
Mignel Morales VS.. j. n. Fiske ct al,
from Bexar county; submitted on briefs
of both parties.
Joseph Keener VS.. Duff Moss ct al,
from Hays county; submitted On briefs of
both parties. T yo cases.
l. d G. N. R'y Co. VS.. 7. M. Prince, from
Hays county; submitted on briefs for both
parties.
l.. q G. N. R'y Co. VS.. C. S. Cooke, from
Hays county; submitted on briefs for both
parties.
G. C. Baker VS.. c. S. Stucke, from
Bexar county; submitted on brief of ap-
pellant.
r. G.. Houston VS.. 1. j. Dixon ct al,
from Wilson county; submitted on briefs
of bDth parties.
r. G. Houston VS.. Estate Mary Mayes,
from Wilson county; submitted on briefs
of both parties.
William Cox VS.. H. g. TIC. Ry Co.. from
Travis county; set for May IL.
DISTRICT COURT.
The case known to the Texas public as
the Goodnight injunction suit, wherein
the state, through its encouragement, al
leges that Goodnight had fenced in and
grazed cattle upon about 100000 acres of
the school lands of the state, and asking
that he be restrained from fencing line
riding, or otherwise using the lands, and
further, that he be compelled to remove
the fences he erected, etc, was heard yes
terday morning before District Judge
Walker in chambers. Attorney General
Ten leton appeared for the state, and
Major W. NJ. Walton, of Austin, and G
A. Brown, of Clarendon, for the respond
ent.
The first exception of the respondent
was in the nature of plea in abatement
or plea of privilege, setting up the re-
spondents right to be sued in the county
of his residence. This plea WAS overruled
by the court, whereupon the respondent
, was heard upon plea setting up that nc
value whatever had been laid as to dam.
age, or of the lands alleged to be illegally
used. Major Walton supported his plea
in strong argument, basing it mainly
upon the constitutional limitation
g of the jurisdiction of the district court tC
suits wherein the value of the matter il
controversy is $500 or more, exclusive Of
interest. Attorney General Templeton re
piled to the effect, that every trespass in
Guided in it, by necessary implication, tn,
idea of damage; that courts took judicia
: cognizance of all laws, and hence it wa
not necessary to allege value. demur
rer was also interposed, substantially set
ting up that the writ of injunction was al
extraordinary process, and could not b'
resorted to when the party applying fol
it had law remedy; in short, that the
equity powers of the court could not b.
invoked where the law afforded redress.
To this, Colonel Templeton replied thai
the law punished the crime of arson but
was that a reason why the court should
e not interpose its arm to stay the hand OF
e the incendiary! In support of his view he
cited authorities bearing upon the ques
e ton at bar. 1t was also asked that the
q suit be abated for non-ioinder OF
S parties, the plea setting up that
part of the lands mentioned in the
), application have been fenced by persons
S for whom he, Goodnight, is agent, and
that said parties are necessary defendants
e in this suit
G. A. Brown, esq, of Clarendon, the
J, home attorney of the respondent, CLOSED
S the argument upon the pleas in abatement
and demurrer in strong presentation OF
4 his clients case, covering substantially the
/. grounds gone over by his associate.
d The following was substantially the rul
}. ing of the court That the respondent
n pleas and exceptions be overruled; that 1
f temporary writ of INDUCTION be granted
the state, restraining the respondent
n Goodnight his agents, servants ant
r employees, from building any additional
fences on or around any of the land de
/. scribed in the bill, or from line riding an,
: of the gaps in said fences, or from herd
ing or loose-herding cattle or other live
stock upon any of said lands, or from tn
= interfering with the free ingress or egres
of cattle belonging to other persons, o
3. from the exercise of any affirmative &C
S of exclusive ownership.
He further ordered that the papers be
t transmitted to the district court of Don
n ley county for trial upon the merits. Thu
court will meet in July next, at whicl
!, time the case will come up for final hear
S ing, and the temporary injunction nov
granted will be either perpetrated or dis
J. solved.
: Here the case rests for the present.
Amelia Brichta VS.. Jas. A. Muir ct al
n Judgment for plaintiff against Muir 70
# 1913, and against Tom Murrah fo
1929.
g. George Faux VS.. Rosa Silva and hu:
d band; decree of partition of the propert
described in petition.
n H. L. Saunders VS.. Z. G. Duvey ct al;
IS suit of trespass to try title, and for part
ton. Not concluded; argument bein
It heard by the court.
Al raII