Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-08
nIGMER COURTS.
Detisions Rendered nc the Tyler sittinu Of
Higher Court nns.lainn.

defendant 70 .sstify that different parties
had told htn Of remarks imputed 20
plaintiff led eating hatred and constant
state Of vigslauge against attacks and /
preparation for any encounter with him.
such proof WAS admissible without proof l
being iirst made that the remarks were
actually made by the plaintiff The
belief on the part OF defendant that these /
remarks were made by plaintiff might |
exist, whether they were actually made
or not, and the belief would act upon his
mind in constituting the motion as II TO !
draw a pistol which defendant testi |
iies was made hy plaintiff at
the moment OF the assault
Did defendant attach TO plaintiffs |
gesture the Specification be now claims TO |
have ascribed TO il was the question. He |
would interpret the gesture in the light |
OF what he believed, and this belief mag
have been Induced by false as well as true |
report. Affirmed. Opinion by Robert
son, j.
floxman ct al VS.. j. S. & w. NJ. Rice,
appeal from - The plaintiffs petit |
ton alleged that he owned land valuable
only for its timber; that the only way Ia
which the timber could be utilized was by
floating 1t down creek TO river, and
these purposes these streams constituted
a public highway, and the thoroughfare
OF the chief industry OF that section
He alleged that he had pre-
pared his timber for shipment in
manner and that defendant with force and
arms, with intent to iniure and dcfraud,
unlawfully intercepted linn in the trans
portation Of his timber, his progress to
the creek being prevented by the defend
ant by profanity, threats, and by demon
stration of firearms, aud by cutting trees
across the route. 1t Is not alleged that
plaintiff had any right OF way from his
land to the creek or that he was on any
public road, or that-he had any right or
interest in the land over which he was
| going 10 haul his logs; nor was II shown
that the land he was trying to cross was
not the property of defendant. Held, II
the land over which plaintiff wished to
haul hia timber belonged to defendant
the latter had the right to prevent his use
of It., if they could do so without breach
of the peace, and the petition shows no
cause of action. Affirmed Opinion by
Robertson, J.
Thomas Dyer VS.. A. Testord, appeal
from -. Suit on a note
which contained an agreement TO pay
attorneys fees. The petition states the
dept distinct IRON the demand Tor attor-
neys fees, and prayed for attachment for
the former only, and the bond was in
double that amount. Held that the
plaintiff was not bound to attach for all
/ the amount sued 'or ana court ala not err
III refusing TO quash the attachment.
| Ahe expression "prooaple cause mas
about tne same slghlhcatlon III lne
law that u mas IN common par
lance, ana II Is not certaln
that any attemptlo elneldate IL does hot
! tend 70 mystllcatlon' Inc jury were toil
that they might INFER nance rom the an
sence OF prooaDle cause ana TINS Is lie
only way IN Wnlch tne expression Is
useu, For TINS purpose there was no leeu
OF dominion.
/ Inc aihdavlt LOT an attachliens eeni i',
ne trayerseo IN aoateinent VI tne WIZ,
| The writ Is authorized, not upon gwen
state OF facts, but upon an andavit 70
| certain facts. me validity OF the wiz
I depends, not upon the truth OIL the facts
stated in the afhdaNlt' Dut UPON lhe IacI
that they are SO stated. Inc Doho pro-
/ tects the defendant me court erIeu II
refusing TO toreclose the attachment Ieh,
because the statements IN the ulhdaVlt LOT
the writ were lounu 10 DC untrue 'uuE-
mentretormed- Oplnloh oy Robertson, =
i. j. 1pperson CT AZ w. ha ~,
Jones ct al. Appeal from foik. me
presumption Delng tnal al prop
erty acquired by either husoana OF VIC
during marriage Dy onerous' titie y CON.
munity estate, the burden OF proving
that any portion thus ACQUIRED Is separate
estate OF the wlie rests upon the party IA
sorting that TACT. ~,
The vile may become lhercnahl, o9 l
she must conduct the business WIN soous
which are her separate properly, on.
must not invest the community essay t .,
the credit OF her husoanu IN inc purtlu y
!, OF the goods, Il she WISHES Ineul 10 ~, y
! exempt from her husoanus oepts, 70
this reason she cannot puVcu y,
on credit put mus puy loI eh ns
only, and be ready 10 snow tna
the money SO nsed Is her sepalav
J property. II the prohts mace upon saIe
of the goods are mingled WIN neI scl1 ~
! rate money IN the purchase she inust y,
prepared to show now much OF hcr o NV,
: money entered into the purchase n. In