Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-11
THE HIGHER COURTS.
' nopsis ~ Dsnlsluus Rendered NJ tho Ann.

tin sitting of tho Court 90 Appeals.
q BurRowor w. Smith & Graddlck, ap.
peal from Denton. This cause originated
In lGstlco's court and was on ap'account
for Sl0D.60. Wit Of garniabmopt Issued
to tho railroad company, who answered
showing m Indebtedness OF 1872, but
That the Hnmo was claimed by BurRower
by transfer, and Burgowor wnB made a
party. Both IN the iuatloes and IN the
county court motions were made by the
claimant, BurgOwer, 20 dismiss Tor want
Of Jurisdiction In The Justices court, tho
amount IN controversy being the sgl2.
These mutlsns being oyorrulodand indp.
mcnt golng against lurgowor ho appeals
Held, that tho jurisdiction was deter.
mined by the amount sued for and not by
Tie amount In tho hands OF the gnrnishoe.
The suit being in iustioos court
| where no plcndingg are requlrod, H.
was not error TO allow evidence that
linrRower hnd paid no consideration for
the clalm Without any plea or afldaylt to
That effect Affirmed. Per curinm
EXparte Alex Mcnley, application from
Webb, Application for bail under n
charge OF murder before Indictment. The
evidence shows that ono HlyOrnoro ,yng
NiNiA'h w NNllIiNlnh WIN lfilW N DIlna
clppl In lho murder II In cUntendod Tint
before Indictment Rvefmpre could tce.
THY Tor the application Hold, 10 wtg not
error 70 refuse this, Al common law
those Jointly Indicted Tor tho s0mo uffonBe
could not testify for each other, aud the
| charge Whighour statute makes IS TO pro.
vent their testimony whoth0r Indicted or
charged separately or Jointly. Tho clauHp
~ the Revised Statutes which provides
mat Interest," ehall not render witnusg
Incompetent has no effect upon the rule
~ criminal eases, Affirmed. Per ouriam
Texas hNprosB Company w. i. W
johnson, appeal from rarAnt The mo.
ton or request that tho trial Judge mako
out ana lllo his findings was not made
untU twelve days after tho Judgment,
aud on the last day OK tho term. Under
thoso circumstances tho appellants are
not In condition to complain here that
the llndinga were not fled. An tho pnr.
tles ut interest wore before tbs court and
tllefo was no error In TIM Judgment of
which the Express Company can com
plain. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Lyon tirlhblo Va Cobb & CO., apppa
from Clny. Tho only material question
M the case was wh0thor the debt sucd
upon was debt duo by Cobb & Go. or
Tho individual debt OF r. II. Cobb. Tho
Jury found that II was tho former, and
mere was no error IN giving Cobb a
Judgment over against l1ustla, no having
nenumed The iiun'e debts. Affirmed Per
curtain
Weir Flow Go. Va w. N. Barker, as.
poal from wichita The court below |
louhu tlAt the contract under which tho
plalhut sought to recover Of defendant
h'alnp0nt OF certain attorneys fees 90 |
Dc "hmbiguons.h This court has bean
no more successful than tho court A ana
III discovering meaning ia tho lnatru |
inent. Tho judgment was for tlefendant
aud ~ affirmed p0r curtain,
Frank Buck w. state, appeal from
Hays, The 0hargo IN erroneous, but tho |
record falls 10 show that any excpptions |
were taken thereto, or that additional IN. |
Ftruotluna were asked Under these
circumstances, the errors not being |
fundamental they Afford no ground for a |
reversal OF tho Judgment Affirmed porl
curlam,
u NJ smith w, The State, appeal from
Denton Under the proylsldna of Art |
bha, q q, r., two modes are provided NV |
which tho State may ooutfovert a motion |
Tor change OF yenun on the rround 81 |
prejudice, hlrat by attacking Inc eroai. |
hllily OF Tue Hilanis supporting tho mo |
ton second, by attaching their means
81 knowledge, Either ol theAo two
grounds " Of Itself suhicient without the
uthor 70 lorm tho lgsue to ha tried on Tho
heaflng ~ the motion Tho fact az TO |
whetlMr or not tho contiovnrtlnp anIapt
70 credible person Is q matter TO bo as.
cefhlned aud determined hy tho
Judge ~ the odurt below Cor.
thluly the fact that ho was Tho
attending phSalcpn 10 The deceased ana
That he was y wituusa ON behalf of IN
prosecution would not IN itself establish
the fact thar he was not credible person
~ The meaning 81 ihe law.
Tho fact that ono OF the special veulre
was dead aud that another was ia the IA.
dian Territory At the uule the writ wns
issued y not cause icr qnaehHg tho ven.
lfo. Snch contingencies cannot DO nbso.
lulely guarded against.
rho recitale VI the eniry az 10 the
Wrnlgnmeni renders II clear that the IN.
uislihent must have hotn read 10 the an.
ppllant before he was required 10 plead
Thereto, and Is substantially al mat IN
statute REQUIRES with regard 20 tho entrv
OF We Tact upon the minutes,
y u lnalslcd that the diagram Of Tho