Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-21

davlt Of a juror It IS nowhere lstIsnssed
that jnrofs may be brought into
court by process sud compelled
20 20 on thu stand and testify as 10 arrn.
mcnts used. opiaiOns expressed, and
vntes given by Juror. In the jnry.soom.
Affirmed. Opinion hy Wilson, ,
James b Stuhbs vs. The Cltynf Calves.
ton, appeal from Galveston Whether The
charter 81 the cry limits the corporate
authority IN It's power to mako contracts
or no., the city cannot be hodDd hy an
implied contract for services rendered
unless the services were originally author
lied by ordinance OF subsequently ac.
cepted by express corporate action. and
neither being alleged Ia me court for
quautarn Ncfiht there was NO error In
sustaining exceptions thereto. (rhe
claim WAS for services as city attorney
When municipal corporation appears
60 DO sctlng under color Of INV, aud its
existence Is not questioned nv the state,
f. caNnOt lateral'y bo drawn Ia question
BY private parties, and rulo Is mol differ
ent although the constitution may pro
scribe the manner OF Incorporation.
The provision Ut section IA. article i6,
81 the con stltuuon, that al officers within
tho state Shall continue 90 perform the
ctssors are duly quallhed, refers to state
aasE county officers, aud not to the non.
elective officers OF municipal corpora
ton.
The requirement OF the constitution
that notice shall be given Of tho inteu.
lion to apply for the passage of special
or local law (artlcle 8, section 5T)
| IL fully met When all the provisions
Of the act rs passed are gormain 20 the
subject matter Of the notice. II certainly
vas never CONTEMPLATED that the notice
should 70 into the minutia, the substance
cnly Is required. Affirmed, Opluion by
White, P.J
X. j johnson vs. State, appeal from Con
Eales. Dcfendantwas convicted OF incest,
| the relations between the parties being al
legged rs that OF sttp.daughter and step.
! father The court charged that carnal
/ Intercourse would be incest, although
such intercourse did not occur until after
the death OF defendants wife, the mother
Of the girl. Held, that after the death Of
the mother and wife the relation OF step
father and step.daughtor ceased as re-
latiouship by affinity ceases with the
dissolution Of the marriage creating It,,
either by death or divorce. Blsh Or.
Pr. col; Bish. Mar. 4 DIV. Sl4 II,
therefore, the Intercourse WAS after the
death of the wife, II was not incestuous.
Reversed and rcmanded, Opinion by
Wilson, j.
! Mexican National Construction Co. VS..
Ia NJ. Tunison. The facts show that
The fence Of appellee was destroyed by
fire from the negligence OF appellants that
the stock che fence being destroyed en-.
tered tie premises Of appellee durlpg tho
night OF the day Of the Dire aud destroyed
his crop OF watermclons; that appellee
made every ebert to keep out the stock
Held, that the damages caused by the
stock were not to remate. Wilson Con
Rep 203.
Where several Items OF damages art
claimed and a verdict Is returned tn gross
but from the plcadngs aud proof II Is
clear what items, embraced In the amoun'
of the verdict, are intended 70 be east on
10y remlititur, the remittltur IL permit
led, Upd this rule does not implnQe %,
decision In lilies vs.. Doeroks, iG Tex
25l Affirmed Opinion by Hurt, j.
S. @. MastersOn vs.. the State, appea
from Bell. Where the first count In tb,
indictment charged theft, and the second
theft from the person lt was not error &,
: refuse TO require the state 10 elect, Sucl
+ where an attempt Is made, us manifesto,
e either by the Indictment ar tho evidence
g TO convict the accused OF two or NOR
$ disuuct offenses growing out Of disiipC
: aud separate transactions, and not whcr
G the joinder Is simply designed and calcu
= lated to adapt the pleading TO diiIeren
|, aspects In which the evidence ON th
\ Trial may present single ,ransac
I tion.
witness was allowed 10 testify tina
= after defendant was arrested by him 10
T. the theft, defendant told witness 10 "giv
r the money to j. G.. Robertson The eyi
dence was Objectionable, as the dciepdan
at the time was In arrest, but the state
ment Of facts showing that when the cyl
drnce was offered and adducod, no oil
1. lection was made, defendant cannot nor
be heard TO complain. Affirmed, Opi
ion by White, j. j,
n Dick Mackey VS. the State, appeal iror
b Navarro; The Indictment alleged tina
I" the owner Of the animal was unknown I
n the grand Jurors. This, under repeate
, decisions Of this court, Is good indici
u ment. II the indictment so AYERS, an
o the evidence shows that the animal wa
J. an estray, no presumption OF OWNERSHIP
e arises from defendants possession ina
!, snch possession Is lawful, but he mus
n establish the legality Of such possession
L wills VS.. State, 40 Tex 90. Affirmed
q Opinion by White, p j.
u Houston Cotton Exchange Ys. J. Grow
d ley, appeal from Harris, Where the clan
" Is for nn amount due upon an express col
r. tract for an entire job, aud for q sum cel
= tain, it Is unnecessary 10 set forth eac
II item of work done OF material Furnished
a In order 90 comply with the statul
requiring the filing Of bill OF particular
"a in order TO tx the mechanics lien. Phi
y, lips on Mechanics Liens, $50; Pool V
" Wedmeyer ct al, 5G Tex, 2s7. II 1t
AZ conceded that ia the case at bar u vi
D. doubliul whether the petition declare
~ upon san express contract for an emil
TO work, for sum certain such dele
VI would not be reached by q general d
ny murier. Affirmed. Opinion by Hurt,
~ Harrison Branch vs.. the State, appe'
IN previous indictment deien
- aat was charged with the theft OF :
Oh morse which was therein alleged TO be Z
ny property OF Fabian Flores. Upon u
- Indictment be was placed upon trial, VI
~ Is to say, the jury were sworn aud q
,ls fendant pleaded u the indictment bria
ial a court OF competent jurisdiction, Up
~ discovering that the owners name Y
q