Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-11-27
THE HIGHER COURTS.

synopses OF Dsosions Rendered at tho
Present Tyler sitting.
COURT or ApPEALs-TYLER TERM, 1886.
i. Il. Downs VS.. the State. Appeal
from Bell county. This case was sub
mitted TO the court on single question
OF law, by an agreement in writing which
was signed by counsel for both parties
BY this agreement all other questions
that might arise were waived. The court
decided the question thus submitted
against appellant, and he now seeks in
this motion for new hearing, to present
another question than the one stated In
said agreement. This question was not
even alluded to in the brief Of appellants
counsel on the first hearing OF the case
This question does not involve the cor
rectness OF the decision of the court upon
the law as II existed at the time OF the
trial, but presents an Issue as to what the
law was at the time OF the alleged offense
The court declines to consider and deter
mine this question because of the afore-
said agreement OF the parties TO the suit,
and, therefore, overrules the motion
Motion for rehearing overruled. Will
son, j.
John Goforth VS.. the State. Appeal
from Rusk county For the reason that
co-defendant jointly indicted with the de-
PENDANT on trial, had been tried and ac-
quilted, would not operate as an &C
quittal for both defendants. If the de-
PENDANTS were partners, but were sepa-
rately indicted for keeping gaming table,
ETC., the conviction Of one would not bar
prosecution of the other. A Dill OF ex-
ceptiOne taken to the excluding OF testi-
mony by the court must show the objec'
lions, and show ailirmatively that the
evidence was rejected. A jury In the
county court is composed OF six men,
| &C. c. p, article 500 The jury IS formed
by drawing from the box twelve names,
or so many as there may be, etc, &C.. O.
p, article G46.) In his particular in
stance there were but Six regular jurors,
and the defendant was made to pass upon
these before others we're summoned and
placed In the box. This was the correct
practice, tor 1t was not required OF the
court TO have the panel flied to twelve
before passing upon the six already in the
box. &c. C. P, GA G47.) And If there
was any irregularity In the formation OF
the Jury, 1t Is not apparent that defendant
was injured. Affirmed. Wilson, D.
George Jones vs.. Il. B. Prewitt. Appeal
from Rusk county jones was sued by
Prewitt Ia justice court upon an account
of Sc So. Prewltt also sued out writ "
demonstration 10 seize certain oats, ana
did seize same. Jones pleaded a coun-
ter claim Of SlT. 40, and In reconyentlon
for damages for the wrongful ana mai.
clous suing out of said writ and levy OF
the same, claiming S26 as actual dam
ages, and S75 as exemplary damages
Pfewitt recovered Judgment In justice
of the peace court, and also IN county
court an appeal for amount sued Tor ana
also for costs. Held, we are OF the opin-
ion that this court has no jurisdiction Of
this appeal. 1t Is true that appellant
claims more than 800 In this suit. II Is
ouIte evident TO our minds that this claim
for SIS exemplary damages is without
anv found alton, and ne could not have be-
lleyed that he was entitled 70 such dam
ayes From the evidence II 10 very APP
nerent that appellant In claiming exeln'
nIarv damages was seeking improperly 70
eSnier upon this court jurisdiction Of his
case in case he should lose his cause u
the court below. (Willson's Con. Civil
Cases, 1919 Appeal dismissed. VIII
parks Bros. VS.. Sanger Bros, Appeal
from Dallas county. Sanger Bros. re-
covered q judgment sgalnsI epP miIs,a ~
Justice OF the peace conrti appellants Re.
moved the cause TO the county court py
certiorari. At the return term Of ihe Wrl'
appellees answered and excepted geneIs
aily 10 the writ and specially 10 the pew
4 ton for certiorari, but made no lorna
motion 10 dismiss the suit. Inese eA.
ceptions were oveTruled and tne Gauss
, was continued. At q subsequent sess'ol
of this court appellees made mouoh =
dismiss the certioTari, upon severe