Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-25
ThE HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis of Deoisi0na Rendered at the Aus
tin sitting OF tile supreme Court.

synopsis of Decisions Rendered at the Au6-
tin sitting OF the supreme Court.
r. s. Forbes vs.. Gulf, Colorado & Santa
Fe Railway Company, appeal from John
son. The charge instructed the Jury that
the plaintiff could not recover II he knew
that ne was on q train which, under the
regulations, was not permitted to carry
passengers, though he may have had the
consent Of the agents running the train
and may have paid his fare. This was a
correct instruction on the theory of the
case presented by the defendant com
pany. The ticket agent denied having
told plaintlff to get on this train aud
there was other evidence that the plaintiff
was advised before he got on that he was
acting In violation OF defendants regu-
iations.
The instructions of the company having
been otherwise proved it was no error TO
refuse to strike out the testimony OF q
witness as TO the contents of certain
written or printed instructions forbiddine
Its agents to transport passengers on
freight trains. Affirmed Opinion by
Robertson, j.
City OF Cleburne VS. Gulf, Colorado &
Santa Fe Railway Company, appeal from
Johnson, Section 8, Art. . Of the con-
stitutlon forblds city TO make either a
donation or appropriation for the benefit
of railway company. Its terms are
broad enough to prohibit city or town
in It's corporate capacity from appropri.
ating Its revenues or using Its credit to
obtain right OF way and depot grounds
for railway company, and the section
must be given this effect, unless 1t is
modified by Sec. 0, Art. 10. The
latter requires companies TO run
their roads through the county
seats under certain contingencies; "pro
fided such towns or It's citizens shall
grant the right of way through It's limits
and sufficient ground for ordinary depot
purposes II Is not here made the duty
OF the town TO make the grant, such d
duty would imply all the powers neces,
sary TO Its execution. But the grant /.
authorized 10 be made by the town "or''
its citizens. The power to borrow money
and buy the land In order 20 make the
grant Is not expressly conferred IL II
exists it must be implied from the mere
permission TO make the grant, which car
be made In certain contingencies without
the power, and which the citizens may
make without the aid of the city. A power
viii be implied only when without its cx
would be nugatOrY
The agreement of the city of Ole,
burne TO purchase right OF wa,
and depot grounds for the company
contomplates AN appropriation for thu
ben, nc of such company snch al Is pro
hiOited. The ordinance authorizing The
issuance Of scrip for this purpose, and the
scrip Issued are void. Reversed and rem
dered OpiniOn by Robinson ]
$. w l., Kennedy VS.. Upshaw & Cox
appeal from johnson. Wills cannot bC
admitted TO probate upon The admissions
of persons who may be Interested In theil
establishment, and II rs doubted .ii Rul,
81 made for district courts has any appli
cation 70 proceedings TO PROBATE wills
The appellees offered paper for probat,
as last viii and testament. The per
sous who IN eject contest this VIII offer
paper which, II established, would be
codlcil. The appellees allege this pre-
tended codici | 60 be q forgery. Upor
the whole case the burden Of
proof rested upon the appellee.
and the court did not err ID
no holding. The fact that the execution
of c0dicil operates as a republication Of
will has no bearing on this question
A declaration made by the tessator 60 his
physician before he left home, and aitei
he returned from Wouan Wells, tat
place where the cOdicl was alleged q
have been made, as 20 bis condition while
Ihere, WAS admissible in evidence, Il