Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-07

the court below erred or not, sud unless
We could do this appellant has no right to
q reversal OF the Judgment F69 Tex. 81 |.
3. In actions 20 recover damages for the
wrongful conversion Of 8 chose IN action
the ordinary measure OF 0smsges is, TIE
amount prims fscie due on tine face OF tie
claim. II the claim for the conversion
OF which the suis is brought is really OF
less value than its face, it Gevolves upon
the defen6sDdt 70 prove that fact. Field on
Dsm. Lse s23 and note SO. Lsdg on Dam.
vol. p. 4O3 ct sis and note q. 8. II the
notes had no market value, but were OF
intrinsic value to the owners because OF
any peculiar Circumstance or relation,
the owners would be entitled to recover
whatsoever they might show tina notes to
have been worth to them. 10 Mich.
1873. Affirmed. Acker, p
Zuadell & Co. rs. Rudolph Cess; sp-
from Cooke. Appellants are bankers in
Swi ,rlsnd. In RENTING money appel
lee had on deposit there, in making the
charge TO United states currency, appel
laurs sent appellee too much
by 1854 Appellee being ignorant
OF his Ie;eiVa, too much money
spent part and invested tbs balance in
homestead. This suit WAS brought ~
appellant to recover that pa,t CT the
premises which had been purchased By
the 1854. Held: 1. The plaintiff, helow
acquired by implication OF Law len
upon the property bought By 6 SO TO the
iull extent OF the amount Of plsintiftJ
funds received by him. 2. The
lien CT PLAINTIFF upon the property
50 bought Is superior to any homestead
right acquired by defendant. The iudg-
msrt is nsrs reversed aad rendered es.
ta5lishing plaintiffs lien upon the land
bought By CASE, and that same oe sold to
satity esid DEBT. Reversed and rendered,
Clllsrd,J
City Of austin VS.. a. R. Ritz; appeal
ron Travis. Suit by sppellee to recover
dsmsgss fos personal Injuries alleged 10
have 5een sustained while driving s
wagon through tae streets Of Austin, same
Lv.EtaEni7g Ia ditch, whereby appellee
we & j7rsd. l. Il Vas not necessary
fer the petition to sllege thGt the city
mad notes Of the defect, came alleging
tast sbe city caused the dangerous cross
;cg 10 be rnsde, where appellae vas il
j1Eed. . Bu! the petition alleging that
see ditch was washed cut Sno Gaat sp>
peusns regl!gently failed 70 repsir same.
il should slso have alleged notice to tie
city. 8. The court erred in admitting IN
evidence the testimony OF tie appellee
thst his time to his fsmi!y was worih
SIPS per month. The court erred IN
refusing special charges to the effect that
il they believed from the evidence tnst
appellee did rot exercise ordinary care il
driving ACROSS sae ditch he could rot re-
Sf1 w IN
uniting appellee TO prove that he was
snort>sighted snd wore epectscles. Re-
vereed and reminded. Coilard, j.
Walker, j., did not sit in this case.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
TYLER, TEX Dec. 5 r. L. Simmons
vs.. toe STATE; appeal from McLeDnsn.
Conviction fer perjury. 1. Where de
tendant makes an application for 8 con-
tinusnce, en- the ground of shsent testi-
mory, which is overrulsd because no
diligence is shown to procure same, and
In view Of the evidence sdduced on the
trial the ale ged absent testimony Is both
material and probably true, the court be-
Low should have granted new trial, not
Wi.hstaGdirg the continuance WAS prop
cry refused. The court erred in not
granting pew trial. Reversed and re-
msnGed. Wilson, j.
Joe Bills VS.. T. S. Smith; appeal from
Lsmer While the evidence is conflicting
the Testimony is amply sufficient TO sus.
lain .he logment of the court below.
Where pehtion Is sworn to thers Is
no nesd fer separate affidavit for Sc
GuestfktioD, the petition containing the
necessary allegations. No error. WILL
sen, j.
San Mutual Insurance Company VS..
NJ. Levy; appesl from Bowie. Motion
icr reheeripg, Ga q former day Of tn.
Term this appeal wss reversed and dis
missed on the ground that the suit YES
barred by limitation. 1t may be, how
ever, that appellee csn Sllege and prove
facts which would estop appellant from
Claiming the advantage CT the Limitation
Clause In the insurance contract, or that
would avoid the operation Of said clause,
and for this reason our opinion OF former
day Is Set aside and the case reversed and
remsnded. Wilson, j.
Henry TomlIn VS.. the State, sppesl
from Ellis. Conviction for rspe with the
life penalty assessed. There is no state
mens CT facts, aud there is no merit in
any Of the bills OF exception IS far as they
csn be considered. No reversible error.
Ali med. Wilson, J.
Alex Johnson Vi. the State; appeal from
L lis. Conviction for disturbing religious
worship. The evidence IL amply sufIi.
Gent to sustain the conviction. There is
TO error iustiiying rtverssl. Affirmed.
Wilson, J.
Il. c. Farrell VS. McDonsld & McCAu-
lev; app al from Wichita. The evidence
warrants the verdict. There WAS no error
in the awarding of she Judgment OF the
court below, In favor OF appellees. No
material error. Affirmed. Hurt, j.
c ". Murphy va, d. Il. Wallace; ap.
peal from Rusk. appellant Murphy and
ore Hollomaa we're Partners in 1901
both oeicg prscticing physicians. In 1881
Murphy mcvad to Indiana, snd left Hol-
loman to collect the accounts, two-thirds
belonging 10 Murphy and one third to
Hollomsu. Murphy also agreed to pay
Holloman we'll for collecting same. In
F. bruary, 1887, Murphy sued Holloman
for his share Of the accounts collected
and obtained judgment By default. After
this HollomSn made out his account for
collecting gnd transferred same TO appel
lee, brought this suit and recovered
Judgment. L. Ii the plsintiff be q
and the defendant 8 non-resI-
dent. and said Geiscdant appears vo;un.