Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-05
rnE HIGHER COURTS.



duly certified from tho proper custodian
shall be admissible In evidence, il cumu.
mtyc and doea not frnder Tho originals
inadmiselblO. Al oilleor may safely obey
all process ioir on ts lace, aud n not
bound 70 Judge OF " by facts wgthn bis
own knowledge, which may be huppos Cd
Ca inYalidaio a. ~ Tex, 4aT. nucansc
q witness does not hear tho whole OF Il
conversation " no reason Tor excluding
~ evidence that portion which he did
hoar Whore the defendant with other
prisoners was brought Into tho court.
room IN chains, which were removed BY
order VI the court Immediately an his on,
totlng The bar II " no ground Tor roVor.
snl Affirmed, Opinion by White, y. u,
Austin Parker vs., The State appeal
from Belt To hold q person uadet the
age OF thirteen amcnable for crime, in
addition 10 their Ordinary intelligence, II
must appear by proof that tho child t.had
discretion sufficient TO understand tho
nature and illogallly of the act conetl.
tubing the oftonse.p Proof that defendant
knew good from evil or right from wrong,
or that h0 WAS possessed OF ihu intolil.
genco Of Ordinary boys OF his age docs
not llll this Requirement. IL must be
shown that he understood the nature and
illogallty Of the particular act oonstls
tuting the crime,
For the state four witnesses teatlaod
that they know tho defendant, did not
know his exact age He was n
boy OF average intelligence OF
boys OF his own age and size and had
sense enough 20 know right irom wrong
To break into house az night and steal
Hold, evidence insufficient Reversed
aud remanded Opinion by White, T.. y,
w, Numsen & Co Va. l., A, 8 w O..
ellis, appeal from Galveston. Tho uuos.
tion being ~ 10 whothora sale oi goods
was made 70 dcfraud creditors, and there.
fore void rs TO them, The court did net
err IN submitting 10 the jury the follow.
Ing Instructions
'ii the Jury believe from the evidence
that the transfer 60 Ellis was made
upon valuable consideration and for the
purpose OF paying bonn ode debt due 20
| Ellis, and the bona Hide dents oi A set OF
other creditors and the purchase
money WAS 10 applied, then you Will Ind
for the plaintlifn
"Iho fact that Il transfer OF property
has the effect of hlndorng or delaying
creditors would not inyalidate Il II the
transfer was made ii good faith 90 pny
the proposed debt, and the purchase
money WAS no applied. There IL no legal
fraud IN debtor In embarrassed olfrum.
stances transferring his property upon n
valuable consideration for the purpose OF
paying bona ildu dcbis,n A sale WIN not
be disturbed for more inadoquacy OF price,
unless The price obtained Ia so grossly In,
adequate as 10 amount 60 a fraud or i'm,
position. Affirmed opinion by white,
T. ~
H. u, liaincy Va, the State, ap.
peal from Cooke There are In the
Transcript IN this case several nfldayits
which attnck the cofroctn0As OF tho
statement Of inels made ont aud certified
ny the trial judge, claiming that much OF
the testimony for defendant "a omitted.
Concodiug the aflldnyits 20 be true, we
know of no authority this court would
| have Ia considering them We must and
will presume that tho record speaks tho
truth and the statement Of facts N cor.
rect, This motion OF the state 10 strike
tho alldayits from the record IL s1s.
tanned,
Counsel for appellant hers cited 10.
mark by Judge Jeffrlos, "that there was
40 tolllng what some men would do n
they only Ind an opportunity aud tho
liability" The good faith and honesty Of
q Judge cannot be questioned, Is onc Of
the most ancient maxims u tho INV
speaking from his own experience, Lord
Jehflos might we'll have given ax,
peflcnro 20 the language quoted
! by counsel, Tor bis career as Judge
II without parallel, and ha N forever
| plloflod IN history ON account Of his own
| judicial lniamy lIe has never, as wd
are aware, though noted for legal ability,
been recognized az authority In legal or
moral ethics, and rest 10 auchautbority
4 n lil Itself tho boat answer 20 the charge
4 against the trial courts
! While the Jury were collaborating on tho
case of w. II. Raiyy, who was Jointly in.
Z dleled With defendant, the court had The
! Joint Indictment sont for In ordcrthni this
I defendant might be afrnignod upon aud
/ plead 10 II. Held, no error. Affirmed,
I opinion by White, T.. D.
Gulf Colorado 4 Santa Fe Railroad
\ Company vs.. FRITZ Albers, appeal from
! Austin, In an action % recover for
/ Injuries ~ grass, etc, by Ere set out
Z by passing engines, Il IL admissible
! that the engines ~ the road az other
times and places at, before and after the
\ burning Ia question SGT out ilrcs. Such
I evidence II admieaable 10 show nogli.
genee and 10 show the possibility that
] The fire In question was SET out IN this
manner ~ u. +. 45t Pierce on Il. r..
| 49,
a reversal Il urged upon the ground
| that the court below erred In tho charge
as TO the measure Of damages, and the
following proposition n submitted
"Growing grass " a part 81 the realty,
and tho measure Of damages fer ~ dc.
strucilon by IRE - the difference IN the
value Of the land just before and Just AZ
4 TOR the nro."
4 This court following the opinion Of
Judge Watts 10 Il, H. Co. ya,Tlppit2 WIN,
non Rep, has repeatedly held that tho
above proposition was correct, but the
4 supreme court has announced the rule
'that tao proper mcaAurs VI damages for
tho destruction Of vegetation growing
upon land Is lts value al the time 81 be,
ing destroyed This court VIII follow