Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-01-29
HIGHER COURTS.



tho Court OF Appeals
John Milton We. N STATE, appsnl from
Grimes. Who're In an indirtncrt far ,iieraliv
marking hogs nndc- III provisions 81 art ,sa
G., Il e alicgou that the hogs wrre of 4
Naius under 80. The charge "a for q u,isdc
meanor, gnd the absence o. any proof Of ne
taue VIII not he cAusc fer reversal. mo n
lcgsN " hlur "a not made llko ihc dcsrrIn
s Nsa n ", .he property and its ownership to
luehuly me Transaction but 70 Indicate the
degrec Of crlminality and Inc coneeopent
n1nislmcht Hence it Is requlrod
Mhste ,he Mind or extent Of punishment 10
pgnde on the value ~ the stolen articles hnt
otherwise Il does not n this was n corviction
rot feions thcn there should not only 10 AZ
,t",ioh ,hat we value of the hogs was $50 or
.n9rr, nnt THIS 4lle alton should be prugeds bnf
being Tor q misdcmcanor, the pnnishmcui ~
NOV era ca by the value OF the property nnrts5
n NY 'here Y no necessity for pro OF valnc.
hish g lroccdure z, vol 7lt. sullivan "a
Nta.o ~ q app. td2 Collins W. State rcpoytrd
10 day, Affirmed, OIlnion b. Hurt. II -
-, brow Va Allcn Brown. appeal from Do
VIII Miorc the petition aiiaiehs a. a callse ~
geuon that the defendant broke and entrr,1
his close, and then amt there Committed free'
pas by cutting timber. the damag, claimed ~
DE urrer to the iurisdicH u on The pro,nd
mat u Wa suit Involving the title 10 land
hvNersed and remandcd, Opinion by iinrt, i
d1hh GoNtnda We G.. Sonttg, appeal from
Bnreson. Sontag r. overrd iadgmtnt ss.,in.t
NOVendn for damage. for causing thp den n ~
his stock BY poison. The evidence q that son
Tag found some corn In Gov n0a's field ticd an
ih rag He carried II home aud I'D n hi Nh.
stock Snnthg was q tcnani Of tiovpndn ans
sal,ivaled land IN tue Same inelosure In which
~ lo 10y thc corn There was evidence that
Sote a. told him that he han poisoned IN,
com, aud that afterwards shc stock was silirA
gy eating y SQniag himself trsHs
ht ,ha, petore feeding The corn TO
nia etock ie looked at it nnd saw that h was
discohTcu, did not look Ike saund ctrI, if'iH
that ~" court eryed In refusing 20 give the ioi
lowing charge at request OF defendant tlho
law that wherever tncro Is negligence on he
part Ol pututiu which cpntTb utra diroefiv y
a. pruNimatc cause 10 thC occurrence from
which ihv Injury arises, such neg igebcp VIII
n gligeut act contributed to the killing OF Ms
stock he wal not b cAuilcd 10 recover 10.
verseu aao rem ndcd opinion b, Wll son, J.
\, y Mcfhcrs VS. the Stat, app al from
1rayton m indictment for thoft which does
noi allcso hat the property was itauduieutiy
taken, " tally defective and win net support
judgment Reversed and the prosocutfbn
dismissed opinion by Wilson. J.
WINS Collins ~, the ate, aupeal from,
tfn' on IN pro uton for burglary The
value OF the artio e. stolen has notGinp 10 ID
with the Erade OF the oiien-o or the punishmenf
tehr assessed, f"r al, minds of burglary with
regard 70 put,ishmc I are upon tho same ren =.
erai i9ou ahd are punished as felonies. II Ia
shown by the evidence IN the case that appel
laut, att his burgl rious entry stole from the
house some biscuits aud spare -rlbsn but no
proof Was addusel a. TO the yMnu { The prop
cry stolen. Whilst II 10 IA better practice
both { alege ana prove value in such eases. n
failure 70 do 50, u seems Is neither error as 10
validity OF pl aiding nor sun, iency OF proof
Aiirm %. opinion bN Wht /, l. j.
Arch Sadler vs. the S ate appeal from Rod
River. TIL i-Hc0in anton ease 10 Jackson va
inc STATE reported In The GAkhrrE. In his, as
IN Jackson'e cnse,tht witness Myers was per.
miitcd TO ertif! that nc informed the ow or of
t'v gun stolcn 10 his 'suspiclons' With re-.
gara u two artes he had seen IN the field
near me place rom ", leu The gun was taken
4 N4I .tl. Il. Inn
viewed In connection win the uthef evidence
10 does no appear 10 have been important
material nor peril en-, ana the tftor was
without pref dice aud not Cause for reversal
Any evidence from whirh the jury can Infer
the value OF stolen article Is evidence for
iu-tanee what the owner trstlhos of IL value
10 him, the opinion OF witness acquaint a
with tne yalue OF Ike piopcriy or what such
property ha- hrQn ht at actual sale; aud 1t Il
the duty Of the cburt 10 Charge upon rue stand.
ard Of value, VIII ch IA the iunfkct vhiur at ne
II would cost 20 replace IL. Affirmed. Opinion
hy White, cd
TAYLOR q al vs Elizabeth P-idgcn q; nj ap
pCul tom Houston. In The prtitlu the r Il
d nee uf i W. aud u liu. tiCk - alleged tn ht
IN Washington county. Citations ssutd a. ain Il
them directed 10 the h rim ~ Auetin county,
ami " &c serted upon tnem by the -horin Of
the IT, I namc1 county. No supplemental or
amended pleading was iilcd by the piatnitd ns
10 their residence Ia sin county. These
citations W re therefore ~ ued " H. iit author
ity of law, and the service thereof did not have
~ effect to priDg the said defendants into
cou {, and cannot support judgment by de-
fault.
here one of the defendants did not reside
In the ounty where the ult was pending ,nd
the return Of the ciidt on ads 10 show tina Sc
Ice was made by delivering to him u cortincd
copy of tic aintihs petition, the service Is
Invalid and VIII not support n Judgment by
default Thir was sui ON former Judgment
which had been destroyed by II ana prayed
fur another Judgment. Held that without he
1 "A
Is lost or destroyed, an elton may
be maintained upon IL, ata while
our statute provides 4 simple and eiilcient pro
csdure a. res ore a lost or destroyed judgmen
Such pro edu "a no exclusive OF any otner,
but Is merely cumulative TO hat given az com.
mon law tfreeman on Judgments 407 4S2. 9
inent sued on was not dormant does not ban this
suit
and he 10 Joined as plairt II ~ her husband,
the Judgment recovered should hc IN hus and
favor ~ wei as In favor OF the life, Reversed
and remanded. Wilson j.
II u StodugTd VS. Ihos. J. Martin, appeal
from Brazos. Martin sued the Texae Invest
mrnt company and received munetHd iudR
ment lie sued ont a writ OF garni h,aent
against a. u, St0ddard, nd the issue between
Martin and stoddard. the answer Of the latter
hay n been cont, sted, was tried In rasos
county, tHe resi- en- OF stpddnrd, Held that
the object on that { eplAlntin failed 10 allege
the inrOrpura Ion OF ,he 1, Nas Investment CO u,
pany coulN be- u ged only In the original suit
aud could have been urged only los such
company. The Judgment In that suit IN
favor Of " rim mustne REGARDED as conclusive
az in Jhnt suit, Il wa alleged and proved, or
alirg d and not denied under oath, that said
company was duly incoTp ,raten TIE rule OF
res adiudicata ap lies, aud tides Va gar
nlshment proc cding no formal pleadings are
rcqpired Tue proposition that where q con
tract IL entlre ia performance bs the en-.
pioye II "a condition pFeG, dem, and he has 10
rtmeiy until he has fully peri ,Tiucd his part
IA not the doctrine In this state The
rule IL, that II the empioyc abandOns
his cont act. the empl yer shaii be charged
wish only he re sonab'c worth, or the nm0u {
nf benefit he mrs cevcd upon the whole
D. ansactisn, aud In estimating his amouni tho
contract price cannot be cNcce led, TIE EN-
ploSe " allowed TO r. over for hie part per
formance ite reasonab @orth not ~ exec q
tn contract price. ana the rmplo. er 10 ree0up
or reco' vene tor damages for The breAt b. The
~ gment is rev reed ana remand d brcAuse
Tia evidence does not support the q ding Of
the court. opinion Uy Wilson, J
Interesting Experiences.
Hiram Cameron, furniture dealer OF
Columbus, Gu, tells his experience thus
ssFOf three wears have tried every Z, .tnedy