Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-15

ton OF the suit. when the sult was de-
termined Branch asked for an order tax
ing Kleineche with fee for his services,
which the court refused. Branch then
instituted this suit against Klcineche fol-
the $3.50. Held, that there was no ex-
press contract by Kleineche to pay
Branch for his services, ana conceding
that there was no implied contract as foI
necossarIes furnished the wife, the dis
trict court in the divorce suit had full
power and jurisdiction, ns a court OF
equity, to adiudicate the right of the at
torney to fee 20 be taxed against the
husband, and this Jurisdiction having
been invoked TO enforce the implied
promise Of the husband, its refusal To
make an allowance was conclusive Of the
right OF Branch. II is res adjucota. Al.
firmed. Opinion by Wilson, j,
Jim Henderson VS.. the State, appeal
from Erath. The trial judge can OF his
own motion order that the statement OF
facts be fled within ten days after ad-
iournment When such an order is made
and the statement Of facts is filed after
the expiration of ten days from adjourn
ment this court VIII not consider the
same for any purpose. But If without
fault of the appellant he has been de-
prived of statement, this court VIII re-
verse the Judgment and order new trial.
This cage was tried and judgment rem
dered October 20; motion for new trial
overruled october 81; on the 18th Of Mo-
yember, that being the last day Of the
term, the appellants counsel pre-
sented TO the Judge his state
ment of facts. The judge being pressed
for time made an order allowing ten days
and left TO hold court In Hamilton.
During the term at Hamilton, the press
of business prevented the judge from
making q statement. After the ten days
had passed. the district attorney pre-
sented to him his statement, which with
amendments he approved and ordered
fled by the clerk as of the term. The
clerk did not comply with this order, but
filed 1t as OF the day 1t was presented TO
him. Held, that the statement OF facts
cannot be considered, and that appel
lants delay in presenting his statement
until the last day Of the term. was such
laches as viii defeat bis right TO re-
yersal on this ground. Affirmed. Opln-
ion by Hurt, J.
j. Is. Moore VS.. Mckinney ct al, appea
| from Washington. Suit originated In
/ JUSTICES court and was upon note foi
1 500; Judgment there rendered for SI2S
principal and interest. On appeal 10 thu
county court the judgment was rendered
! for SiGs, debt, interest and costs, and al
appeal taken 10 this court. Held, tha
neither the amount IN controversy MOI
! the Judgment gave this court jurisdiction
of the appeal Tho former Judgment q
( this court set aside and the appeal dis
missed. Opinion by Hurt, J.
Sam Norwood VS.. the State, appea
from Guadalupe. When the witness
Jones, TO whom defendant had traded thu
stolen horse, rode up TO where deiendan
lived, the defendant said that he did no
know him, but when Jones called his at
| tentlon 10 the fact that he, defendant
had traded him, Jones, the horse, dc
PENDANT at once knew him, and iniormei
/ Jones where he could get the horse b.
\ traded defendant. The defendant also toll
Jones that he got the stolen horse iron
Z a Mexican while hauling cotton 10 gin
AZ another time no said he got tb
horse from a negro, and at the time OF IN
i trade with Jones he said he raised I