Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-04
= nIaaEs COURTS.

n Ibe : s,ntedw was that the cVh
4 .or and n wichita county on
40 cattle lsUu y 1884, Davis, the
j az q ssS S under oath, denying
n snsve.ssv, ne petitions and alleged
sssous y .n = The company to be
rhisn sn ,Ss taxes. The injunction
sbls i9s ~. ,uy the company appealed.
solyed, anu notion or request that
A A~e'SseId over for > a .r,ni mo ex-
" INV INV prayer for anytning eM
4 nol sny ,,sn The court did not err
40 inlaucs.S5s Injunction. In the
&selslss ,be court below the
i q W for delay, and It 1
lon va against appellant and
jnSginennsr n per cent. damages.
ieiies a ~ Article 1884, X. ).
b ROY s arror 10 render Judgment
VS. .vssIes for the amount OF the
W s Twas & New Orleans hallway way
~ White, 81 Texas 1879. Re
W " ...ndered. opinion by Hurt, j.
Ag a lsnr vs., State, appeal from
y This was a conviction ior
sst. ,sn peace by cursing ana
lrg wv pnblic street. The proof
X. 4 defendant, a woman was " u ba
v get a lemonade ana was DC
y ~ An officer came in, seized
sn's IVA her into the street. While
s along the street she in
a' bsd language. While II may be
". v' 70 do so, woman has the
Me J, !, enter a saloon and drink
me evidence shows that she
y mon the street, but was car
y 10 ne officer. The conviction
as0ss, xxx Another defect is there
< ',Sr Of the venue. Reversed
.ppdpd. Opinion by Hurt, j.
s'I nspm VS.. Hathaway County
.nssl from Lamar. This was an
s app in the name Of the county
s' ,sr5yer the penalty on liquor
4 Soud, the breach alleged being o
e ,iouor 70 a minor. 1t Is urged
q - saonnty Judge could not try the
n, M reasJn that that he was a
8 ne suit. Held, he was not such
4 n The suit as would disqualify
"a setting in the case. The action
Icnrht as directed in the statute.
.rgsd that as the petition contained
&gSts. one for selling to q minor
Jo,hrr for permitting a minor to
4 IN the premises, that there was
N refusing to make the prosecution
{ooa which count he would 90 to
n, This was no error. Affirmed.
3IIam.
sFsr Clements VS.. the State, appeal
&;uadalupe. The complaint and in
,fion both name the defendant as
In Turner. The evidence, verdict
adament are againt Turner Clements
4 being nothing in the records to
IN the party convicted with the
charged In the information, the
IA Is fatal. The court further ex-
4 the opinion that the evidence is
SncIent. Reversed and remanded.
b. BY White, 2. j.
ID. Jackson VS.. j. 2. Smith and j,
hd, appeal from Tarrant. In our
tn The facts show the existence of a
frshlp sufficient to make Smith and
.liable for work and labor done
Informed in conformity with con-
Entered into for the benefit of the
by with the regularly appointed
Of said company. The Judgment
&hem is reversed and here rendered
APPELLANT recover of all the defend
|lad his costs of this court OF appel
Smith and Reed. Opinion by White,
4 Yoskum VS.. State, appeal from
Toe prosecution being based on
NJ ?. c., the offense is limited and
"a by the word "willfully," which,
flparlance, means with evil intent,
gtthe act was done without reason.
frOund to believe that the same was
y The evidence is not sufficient to
tAls was so In this case. The ami
fken was branded with q brand Sc
\ like that which was upon one
appellant had been authorized tc
Psi II may well be that defendant
under an honest mistake. Re
\ and remanded. Opinion by White
Fdlck ct al. VS.. State, appealed from
4 The answer to scire facias OF
ped bond set up the fact that de-
Nv at the time the case was called
tal, was in another state and toe
Ooe moved. To prove this matter
lTeiles offered to put on the stano
principal in the bond-thC
\ indicted. The court, Oh
lon by the state, refused
Pw him to testify. Held, q princi
aOail bond is not disqualified from
|llg on q proceeding to forfeit the
While quasi criminal, such pro
Pg i governed by the rules in civil
reversed and remanded. Opinion
hlte, P.J.
Baker VS.. the State, appeal from
4 ms Is a conviction for obstruct
|guslic road. This offense, like tina
FAuui's case above, is limited TO tn,
wllliul.p The evidence shows
|elendant agreed with his neighbol
~ road should run entirely on sale
pgts land, and not upon his own
ioinedi that he paid for this con
N, ana that the county commission
'u,s had agreed to this arrange
Ihese facts do not warrant th,
rsloh that defendant moved hi
anu thereby INSTRUCTED the roaC
gauy or with evil intent. Re
anu remanded. Opinion by White
MOTIONS.
permanently recognizance in til,
states that defendant stands
with breaking, pulling dow
lIilg a fence" This states n,
N aSAlnst the law; II should appea
= l lsnce was the property of an
alouon to dismiss appeal sus
r,,n, ne recognizance found in tn,
/. w ~ rseltes that it was entered int
so .Ourt, but 1t further appears from
4 ,r.,.! OF the clerk thereon tina
Hi'tten out aud fled as a paper Ii