Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-16

ana Witn tne Sole puI pose OF securing hts
. debt, may receive = ropeTty in payment OF
a debt due II the transfer be openly made
and no more prfJpertY taken than may be
| reasonab y rec. aired to discharge the debt
he may do So, and this although the cred
itor may know Il the time of the
transfer that he will prevent other cred
itors tlom enforcing their claims, and
that the debtor is prompted In making
such. preference payment by motives o.
/ fri ndship. We are OF opinion the court
, e. red in this case, in view Of the facts in
} refusing to give In charge the fourth spe'
cal instruc Ion requested by defendant
/ as follows. "You are charged, gentle
, men, that g creditor may take goods from
q failing debtor, provided he does so
openly, bat he must take no more DDS
, than will be sufficient 20 satisfy hi debt;
and II credi.er does take more than is
sufficient to satisfy his claim, and pays
! such falling debtor money or other
valuable consideration, can and
/ does place himself beyond the reach OF
other creditors, then the whole trans.
action will be fraudulent and void and II
In this instance you thall fad plaintiff
paid TO Bishop money aud assumed to
pay the debts Of Bishop to some OF his
other creditors, then the transaction will
be fraudulent and void, and you will find
for defendant This charge enunciated
the correct principle, and for failure to
give 1t the cause is reversed and re-
manded, White, p. J.
Henry Dixon VS.. The State. Appeal
iron Il lis county. In order for an in
dictment or information to charge the
offence Of unlawfully selling intoxicating
liquors In q local option county, it must
/ allHUq the 10 m M ha 20 H.,
was sold, or If such be unknown, such
fact must be alleged. Reversed and
dismissed. Hurt. j.
| Louis Roberts VS.. The State. Appeal
from Falls county. To come within the
provision OF the statute prohibiting the
Drl0ing OF with IS, or Offering to bTibe
witness to avoid the service OF
subpoena, the Indictment must allege
the means by which the crime was
attempted, and the means alleged must
be proven as alleged. Toe only
evidence upon this issue was, in sub.
stance, that L. was In bank after de-
fendent had been bound over to appear
before the grand jury, and defendant ap.
preached him and told him that he had
not intended stealing Is CHAIN but was
drunk when the offense was committed,
and II +. would not appear against him
he would pay him $50 f. said he had
nothing to do with the matter, and re-
ferred defendant to the county attorney.
Held, there is nothing in the evidence
treating OF or relating to a subpoena,
or In the slightest degree indicating the
means by which the service Of the sub.
p9na might, would or should be avoided.
Reversed and remanded, Hurt, j.
Waterman, Star & Co. VS. Geo.ge Sill
Arr.
county. " appears that sam Marks ON
October G., 1885, was indebted to large
number of persons, and that George SIl. |
berberg was surety for most of this in |
deotedness. On that day Marks executed
an instrun emit which acknowledged to |
several persons and firms which held |
deots for which Silberberg was security. |
whereby he declared that he sold and |
conveyed stock of goods accurately |
described to Suberberg. Tae instrument |
empowered Silberberg to sell the goods
and apply the proceeds to the payment of
enumerated debts, one due to Silberberp
and the others debts for which he was Sc
curity, and to- the payment OF the ex-
penses or selling the goods; and it de-
clared "that when a sufficient amount ar
quantity OF said goods are sold to nav off
and discharge said expenses aud said
claims and Interest as specified, then the
remainder OF said goods to be returned
to me or my order' The instrument
also contained this clause: "Ths con.
veyance and delivery of said goods, wares
and merchandise is intended as mort.
gags. to secure the payment of the claims
herein named" The indebted
ness OF Marks at that time
amounted to $4,000. The goods
conveyed were worth sI2 O00 The
claims enumerated and described in the /
Instrument were Sl0,69s, besides some
interest then due. Marks had no other
property except 5000 in accounts. also
conveyed TO Sllberoere. The goods were
delivered to Sllberberg, and the instru
meht MED with the county clerk as ,
cnattel mortgage. While Silberberg was !
10 possession appellants caused writ of
attachment to be levied on part OF the
go d7 am nunting to Sl5lT The SUIT was ,,
against Marks for $987.27 then due an
pellants, and attachment issued for that !
amount. When the attachment Wa
eVied Silberberg made claim under the
statute aud the court decided In his favor
rms appeal is prosecuted from that e
Judgment, and it is agreed, If the instru :
heht executed by Marks Is chattel !,
n 'rtgase, then the judgment is correct.
= rus uihehl which upon It's face shows
NAT IL was intenued as security for
oeot or debts, Is to be deemed a mort.
;'ge, although it may give power to a
'redltor, creditors, or even to n third
'erson, TO sell the thing mortgaged and
% Apply the proceeds to the debt or dents
occurred Holdinc as we do, thar the in
trument is in effect chattel mortgage
ne Judgment, in accordance with the
greement of the parties, is affirmed
Affirmed. Stsyton, j.
u; Il. BuzArd VS.. the First National
sank Of Greenville. Appeal from Hunt
ouny' The cause of action in the
ourt below was a promissory note ex.
cuted by one Il. Pennington 10 annei-
&c. Appellee originally sued Remington
zone, out ~ amendment made appellant
party defendant, alleging that the latter
nd remington were partners Ia the cat.
- 70 business, and that the note was given
or partnership debt of that firm. The
'adlng question is Vhethar tho