Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-01-31

W I00 OlsCI6LlOQ OF Inc O6I6luEuJ. 1H6EG
are well settled exceptions to the familiar
general rule, that witnesses can only
speak as to facts, and cannot be
permitted to state their belief or
opinions, one of which is, that
where the issue is as to the sanity of q
person, even witnesses who are not ex
peTts are permitted to state their opinions
and conclusions upon the facts to which
they testify. In this instance as in the
case under discussion the inquiry is sub
stantislly the same, that is, the mental
status Of the defendant st the time of the
commission OF the act, snd evidence which
is competent upon the one should be held
competent upon the other. 1t was not
error to permit the witnesses to state
their opinions, having stated the facts
upon which t5eir opinions were based.
Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Will
son, J.
SUPREME COURT.
Ccrresp ondence of the Gazette.
GALVESTON, TEX, Jan. 27.-Thomss
II. Ware VS.. Smith & Alexander; appeal
from Leon county: Judgment was rem
dered on Msy %, 1886, and petition for
writ of error fled on June 5, 1856. Cita-
ton issued and was served July 8, 1886,
and supersedeas served on July 6, 1886.
The writ was thereupon returnSble to the
last term of this court st Galveston, and
not having been fled ct that term elapsed
without its being filed, jurisdiction of
this court was lost. Cause dismissed.
Opinion by Willie, P. J.
John T. Stark VS.. Argus Ellis; appeal
from Orange county. This is an action
of trespGss to thy title, brought By sp-
pellant to recover OF the appellee lot in
the town of Orange. Plaintiff claimed
the lot under sale made by virtue of an
execution issued upon g Judgment OBJ
tanned in Justice court. An appeal
from Justices court properly perfected
vacates the Judgment of the JUSTICES
court, and no order can be entered above
reversing the judgment. Judgment Rf-
frmed. Opinion by Willie, c. J.
W. D. Cleveland vs.. j. ". Tufts; sp-
peal from Washington county. Where
case is removed to the District court from
the County court because Of the disquali-
fcation Of the County Judge, the original
Jurisdiction Of the District court imme-
diately attaches, and the cause proceeds
in all respects as if originally instituted
there. Money paid upon judgment aft [
erWsrds reversed may be recovered by
the party making the payment. Affirmed. |
Opinion by Willie, CD
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway
Company VS.. d. D. Dawson, Sheriff; ap-
peal from Brazos county. This is an ap-
peal from q judgment Of the District |
court, on ia motion filed in the case Of !
Anderson McCrSy VS.. Gulf. Colorado and
Santa Fe Railway Compsn. to retax the |
costs Of the sheriff. The sheriff received |
the citation in the principal suit, together !
with seventeen other citations in other |
suits against the defendant corporation at
the same time. 1t was necessary to 90 !
from Bryan, the county seat, to Allen |
Farm, a distance Of twenty-five miles, |
to serve them. At subsequent time |
five subr9nas in this case, each |
for different witness at Allen Farm, and |
also other subp0laS in the other cases |
against defendant were placed in the |
hands of the sheriff and were served. It |
Is contended that the officer was entitled !
to make but one charge of cents per
mile for the distance actually travelled in
serving the citations, and that this should
De spportioned among the eighteen differ
9nt cases; and that he should be allowed
nilesge only for one subpoena to be
divided in like manner. The language Of
article 1896 is plain and the sheriff can
only rightfully charge for distance
actually and necessarily travelled in any
case; but he is entitled to charge
.or each writ, though he may serve more
han one upon the same trip. There
,sn, however, be but one mileage if slI
he persons be included in the one writ
md served at the same plsce. If after
serving upon one it be necessary to serve
he additional parties or witnesses named
n the writ with him, the sheriff is to be
allowed for the travel necessary for the
irst service, and such other additional
ravel as is required in order to execute
lis process, and for no more. Judgment
eversed and rendered in favor Of appel
ee. Opinion by Gaines, j.