Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-22
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopsis OF Decisions Rendered at the Gal
weston sitting of the Supreme court.

A. +. Donnell CT al. VS.. ii. Mallebraud,
appeal from Fayette. An assignment
that "the verdict OF the jury was con-
trary to the evidence and In open dlsre-
gard OF the charge OF the COURT is too
general TO receive attention from this
court.
A declaration OF an intention TO make
certain land a homestead, where followed
by acts tending TO show that the intent
was TO be carried out would amount TO a
declaration, and therefore such declara-
ton Is admissible In evidence TO show
that the land Is homestead Affirmed.
Opinion by Willie, CD
Texas Manufacturing Company vs.John
Crowley, appeal from Galveston. Suit TO
recover damages for the loss OF a child,
whose death was caused by the explosion
of defendants boiler. Where IL was
shown by the evidence that the engineer
was charged with the duty Of seeing that
the machinery was In good order, a charge
| by the court that III the Jury believed
that the defendant employed him aud i'm
posed upon him the duty Of inspecting
/ the machinery and seeing that II was kept
lin proper order, that his negligence In
| this respect would be the negligence OF
! the company" was correct.
In cases in which damages are claimed
for injuries resulting in the death Of a
child too young TO labor the damages, In
the nature OF things, are largely conjectu-
| raj, and IL has been held In many cases
that the jury may assess the damages
without such proof, thereof as Is required
IN other classes Of cases. Chicago vs..
Schallerj 10 H., 400; KY Co, VS.. Barker,
10 Am. and Eng. R'y Cases, 20S; Nagel
vs.. R'y Co., 10 Id, 703. In this case II
is not necessary 70 pass upon this ques.
ton, for there was evidence sustaining
the verdict rendered. There Is no test
by which with mathematical accuracy the
amount of damages In this character Of
cases can be determined. II, In such
cases, verdict appears TO be clearly ex-
cessiye, the trial court should SET them
aside.
Unless the verdict appeared TO be
clearly excessive, the fact that remitti-
tur was entered would not interfere with
the right of the plaintiff TO have a iudg-
ment for u less amount than that
given by the verdict. Whether the Re-
yised Statutes have changed the rule, In
reference TO remittiture, laid down In
Thomas v. Womack, 10 Tex, $50, is not
considered Affirmed. Opinion by Stay
| ton, j.
Wegner Bros. vs.. Beering & Co., appeal
| from Galveston. The defendAntsi Veg
ner Bros, claimed In their answer that
the only consideration that supported the
note sued on was the Surrender TO Veg
ner Bros. Of the obligation OF the Wegner
Bros, together with that OF one tohl,
heretofore entered into with the plain
tiffs In order TO save Pohl from crimi-
nal prosecution for theft by the PLAINTIFF.
on this issue there was evidence tending
70 show that two notes had been exccut-
ted by Pohl TO plaintiff; one for $1,000 for
the property stolen and one for $4,000 for
60 DIS bought. These notes were Endorsed
by defendants, Wegner Bros., who after.
wards took them up by giving the mote
sued upon. Wegner Bros. had recovered
from Pohl on the notes he took up, some
sT00, thus realizing q benefit from the