Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-30

that the sale Is made ~ trhuui tneIe - .
reason why II should not be upheld, che
yendee does not know, and Is not IN pos.
session Of facts which would aror4se the
suspicion OF prudent man anc. put him
ON inquiry as TO the fraudulen's intention
Of the seller. There Is no reason why such a
creditor should not be put upon the same
plane with any other purchaser. Affirmed.
Opinion by Willie, CD,
o., G. & s. Fe R'y. 60. vs. A. s. Dorsey,
apbeal from .--------.--.. The plaintiff was
in the employ and pay of appellant; he
was coupling cars Of the other de-
fendant company on part OF the road
originally belonging to the latter. But he
was doing what the appellant employed
him 10 do. The defect which caused
the injury was In the track and the train
OF the other defendant company,
but this track formed part
OF yard used In common
by the three companies whose roads
lntersected there. One company fur
nished the cars and engines, another the
fuel, and appellant furnished the plalntih
az switchman Each defendant was a
party TO the negligence Of the other. The
plaintiff was the servant OF all the com
panies interested Ia the union yard, aud
each owed him the duty of mnstcri this
duty was not shared between them, but
Jointly and severally owed; II anything
was omitted or committed that ought
not 10 have been, both were guilty
OF negligence and liable, and
each was guilty and liable.
The court does not invade the proyince
Of the jury in failing to submit TO them
issues II fact, upon which there Is no
proof upon but one side and upon which
contrary finding would be wholly UNI
supported by the evidence. In such
state Of evidence there is no Issue OF
fact.
No rule deserving the name has yet
been devised by which the profession or
this court can satisfactorily determine
that verdict 10 such cases Is too small
or too large. What shocks the
conscience or maniiests passions or
prejudice In the jury are tests too
elastic for practical use In great MAORI
ty OF cases. They readily dispose of ex-
tremes, but those which need rule are
those which press the bounds Of reason
without transgressing. What is compen-
satlon for such an injury is ascertained
by the average judgment Of reasonable
men In this case the verdict was for
$4,000. The plaintiffs collar. bone was
broken, his chest compressed between
the cars, his right arm was broken in two
places below the elbow and two above 1t,
and the elbow joint was crushed. Though |
but seventeen years of age when Injured, |
he weighed more then than at the trial, |
more than two years later. His suffer |
lngs were intense and long.continued, his |
health Is probably impaired for life, and |
lie itself shortened. The use OF his arm |
Is In large measure destroyed, The |
verdict Is very large, and the court has
le>itated Ia reaching conclusion AZ.
lrmed, Opinion by Robertson, j.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS,
Louis Pauline VS.. Siatd, appeal from
Coleman. Conviction OF mansaughter,
he defense being that defendant killed |
ne deceased on account OF the adultery |
If deceased and defendants wife. II was |
shown by the evidence that after being |
Of the adultery the defendant |
lad met, eaten with, and had a settlement |
with deceased The deceased had left |
going to a distant county and that defend |
ant followed and killed him. Such being |
The evidence 1t was not error to charge |
hat the provocation must arise at the |
u former provocatlon. Affirmed. !
Opinion by White, z. j.
Houston Stiff vs.. State, appeal from |
Denton. In the lower court the docket
lum1er OF this case was 585. The am. |
iavit aud informa ion having been lost |
was substituted. BY mistake the substi- |
.uted papers were numbered 555,
objection was made TO the |
"A al
and overruled, Held, when the mistake
was made to appear, it should have been
corrected on motion or by the court OF its |
own motion.
The Information charged the keeping OF |
a gaming table "in the city OF Denton
II was essential to prove that the table
was Kept Sin the city of Denton" 1t being
descriptive OF tine ogense. Reversed and |
reminded. Opinion by White, L j.
H. Il Roach VS.. State, from Hunt. It
Is true that the statutory motion to post
pone or continue on the ground Of sur
prise is conaded to the sound discretion |
Of the court; but 1t Is none the less true
that II the court improperly refuses the
postponement, and on motion for new
trial II is developed that the absent wit |
ness was material, the motion should |
prevail
The theory of the state was that de-
fendapt went TO the house OF Hefner ut
night TO waylay and murder the assaulted |
party. When seen upon the porch |
appellant made no attempt to do |
him violence. When Poindexter, the |
issaultlng party, came out with his pis-
Lol, the defendant ran. Poindexter pur- !
sued him some distance, when defendant |
turned and fred upon him. This evidence !
called for 4 charge submitting to the jury
The theory that II defendant was mere |
trespasser, aud thus provoked the occa. |
sion which resulted ia his shooting, with. I
out any Intent to kill or 60 serious harm, |
then he would not be deprived OF the |
right of self-deienso entirely. Again, il |
defendant went with the intent TO Kill, but |
abandoned such intention In good faith |
and tried to escape, then II he was pur |
sued, his right OF sell-defense reyives.
Reversed and remanded Opinion by
White, Z. j.
Touy rhurston ys. State, appeal from
Fannln. The defendant and deceased
lived IN the same house, In different
'oomsi they had been to town together
hat days deceased returned ilrst and was
n his room when defendant came
! mes he asked deceased why he
lid not walt for him, deceased told him,
yhpn A f.ndant l1.I hin, =, 10, ]