Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-26

erg In the purchase ana In inc ttahSp.
ton OF the business pertaining 70 sucn
agency, acquires notice or knowledge VI
facts which vitiates the purchase bus
unless one has been made tho agent Oh
the other by virtue Of partnership rela-
tions or some other means, neither can
ordinarily be charged and held accounta-
HE for the knowledge Of the other. II an
incumbrance exists affecting the title 70
land and purchase be made by several
Jointly or as tenants in common, those
who have notice will hold their title IN
naturalization 20 Is, while those
who did not have such notice,
will hold title free from the claim TO which
their cotenants are subjected. freeman
on cotenancy, Ill Parker VS.. Kane,
wis. 27; Wiswall vs.. MCGOWAN, Bar
bour 2si S. c. Hofman's oh. 1875; Snyder
VS.. Sponable, Hill $40; s. O., HUI Az.
The case of Littleton VS.. Giddings, ~
Tex. H. seems to Intimate diherenD
rule, but in that case II was shown tnat
the cotenants upon whom notice WAS
sought 10 be fixed had notice OF suchlacts
as put him upon inquiry.
Rippetoe died before the last trial Oh
this cause, but had testified on former
trial, In which statement OF facts was
made M, signed by counsel and APP
proved by the court This was permitted /
10 be read In evidence. While not de-
cided In this case as being unnecessary, |
there may be cases in which, In the abb |
sence OF better testimony, such evidence
would be admissible Reversed and re-
manded. Opinion by Stayton, j.
COURT or APPEALS.
NJ. M. Smith VS.. the State, appeal from
Erath. Six persons, among them this
appellant, were indicted for theft OF cat
tie. Tire important question In the case
| Is as TO whether appellant was principal
or m accomplish. The cattle were estrays
running in Erath county. The cattle were
taken and driven out OF Erath county by
some of the other defendants, this de-
PENDANT not being present at the taking;
he was at the time at his home in Parker
county Tie evidence shows q conspira-
cy between the parties actually present
and this defendant TO take the cattle. In
pursuance OF the conspiracy, the cattle
were taken and driven into Parker coun-
| ty, where this defendant took charge oil
| them and carried them to Fort Worth
with the intention Of selling them; they
were not sold, but were after
ward turned over to the own
err on the order of this
defendant In an elaborate opinion
White p j., Wilson, j., concurring,
holds that he was principal, and an-
nounces that, "If there was conspiracy
between all the parties to commit the
theft the part to be done by others be-
Ing TO take the properly, and the part
assigned to defendant being the sale al
ter IL was so taken, then all were prlnci-
pal offenders though this defendant was
not present at the taking" Affirmed.
Hurt, j., in dissent, holds that the true
rule is, that if defendant was not present
at the taking, but had agreed to, advised
or commanded the taking, his being a
principal or an accomplice would depend
upon whether or not the persons actually
engaged in the taking had guilty knowl-
edge of the intention of defendant. II
the parties actually taking the cattle were
without any knowledge of the fraudulent
intent OF defendant then this defendant
would be guilty as 4 principal, for the
reason that those taking being limo
cent of any crime the defendant
could not be guilty rs an accomplish, for
that presupposes a principal, and defend
ant alone being guilty of the crime he
must be guilty as a principal. ON the
: other hand, If the parties taking
: are themselves guilty, or have guilty
7 knowledge of defendants intention, then
. |
this defendant Is an accomplice, because
he is not present at the taking, nor did he
I do any act constituting him principal
. under the statute; art. "a, 20, II, Z. c.
He holds that under this rule the judg'
ment should be reversed, citing I Bl. "a
a | Bish Grim. law, $40, 65l,
Dave Smith vs.. the State, appeal from
; Erath. The Indictment was in the com
y mon form for theft OF cattle and the cour
! charged the law of art. 749 L. c., In effec
= instructing the jury that they could un
) der this indictment convict for driving Of
> removing stock from their accustomed
Q range. Held, that the crime denounced
u by art. 7i9 Is theft OF a lesser degree, con
. tanning all the elements of theft, and Their
, was no error In the charge, and tie in
Y dictment supports the conviction. AT
= tirmed. Opinion by White, P.J j., Hurt
+ j., dissenting
- Dan George vsC Tilghman, appeal iron
I, Washington. In his original petition tn
~ property was alleged by plaintiff to be hi
~ own, and the suit was in his own right
BY his amended petition he alleged tina
4 1t was the separate property OF his wife
=, or, II not, then community property an
= exempt The court on motion taxed tn
70 costs up TO the filing of this amended pt
tllOu against huo ptuiutlhi WI
. recovered. Held, that plaintiff wa
y, stiIl contending in the amended pr
~ tition for recovery in his own right, an
a the taxing OF the costs against him wa
~ error. II the amended petition had bee
~ based alone on the right to recover tn
20 property as the separate property of HI
s so wife, the order would have been correct
"o Judgment affirmed but rendered as
IN costs. opinion by Hunt, j,
n. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railwa
:. company vs.. Ford ct al, appeal froI
sd Burleson. AZ former day this appeal wa
n dismissed, majority Of the court holl
yn ing that as the suit was for less than 500
oh and 1t did not aillrmatively appear irol
ey the record how the county court acquire
,r. Jurisdiction, this court acquired nor
u upon appeal. On rehearing, dlfferei
,r- rule Is announced and the case dispose
10 of on the merits. The suit in justice
nd court was by Ford, alone, for cotton d
he stroyed by fire. He recovered iudgmel
I'M aud the company appealed 20 u
n. county court In The county court Mr.
, Scale interviewed aud claimed one.thiI
Ia Of the cotton IL was made TO apnei