Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-18

iered in the petition do not disqualiiy
saId comfy jedge from acting upon this
netitlon. Tets court will not grant the
writ OF habeas corpus originally until IL
Ter the local powers have been applied
ia and have refused to act. White, z j.
Springfield Fire aud arine Insurance
Company Va. w. d Lacy. Appeal from
Denton county. When both policies are
got cf one agent who is agent OF both
companies there IS no forfeiture, as in
surance is a personal contract, and must
be supported by an interest In the subject
insured, an alienation OF the prop
ertv terminates the insurance, un-
less at the time Of the loss the
title has been revested in the insured
The alteration must be such that at the
time of the loss the assured has no insur-
(, able interest Appellants claim that they
were not notified as per contract. 10 was
I shown that the agent was in Denton at
! the time OF the FIRE and knew 1t at the
/ time. However, he failed to notify APP
pellant company until his attention was
called to the fact by the assured a rea
sOnable and liberal rule is that If the com.
pauy or its agent had actual notice and
made no objection, It cannot afterwnrd
insist that the notice should have been IN
writing. Affirmed. White, p. j.
| w. d. Hill VS.. che State. From Bell
county. One Hunt was indicted and tried
| for illegally marking and branding a GER
/ tain calf Appellant was a witness, and
his evidence is assigned as perjury. Hunt
sued Hill for the calf before a justice OF
the peace, and Il i'll recovered Judgment
for costs. On the trial of Hunt for perjury
the record and judgment In the case OF
Hunt vs.. Hill was offered in evidence to
prove the title of the calf. The State OBJ.
iected and was sustained. In this there
/ was no error. The parties to the first
suit were not the same as in this prosecu-
ton GO Greenlenf on Ey., 522). Conyer-
sgtiUns of defendant anterior TO October,
1882, were pertinent and admissible. OBJ.
| lection is made that the court does not
define the word "wilful." No obiec.
tions were heard, nor were any
special charges asked in the court below.
We are cited to cases holding that it Is
necessary to charge upon the word
"wliul." These decisions are correct
when considered with reference to the
offenses discussed, and the peculiar facts
of the case cited In this case, however,
we do not think the omission con.
trlbuted in the least to the injury Of de
PENDANT. We cannot see how a party
can deliberately, coolly, without mistake
or inadvertence make statement without
such statement be made "wllfully.n II
was error to omit to charge this, 1t should
have been objected to at that time. We
must look to the entire record too see Il
appellant is prejudiced, and so looking
we preceive no injury. Other objections
are urged, but there are no fundamental
errors, and the judgment will not be dis
turned. Affirmed. Hurt j
o. A. ElhLhorp vs. A. w. Morris. Ap
peal from Cook county. Suit ON account
and for damages. An exception to the
| general rule that opinions of witnesses
are not admissible to prove the amount
of damage, is where uniquidated damages
result from an injury complicate in it,
circumstances and difIcultof description
A witness acquainted personally with al
the facts, may be permitted to give his
opinion of the total or aggregate loss OF
value, as some evidence Of the fact. Tht
| damages, however, are excessive, and tn,
Cause will be reversed and remanded
! Hurt, j