Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-26

- E%y%Y[ car. |. Il was not
error 10 per...l. appellee to testify tbs
sppsllsat Vas receiver NJ the Galveston,
Ssbine and S. Louis r :. SKY, re having
answered appellee's peri iOa rs 7sce yer
The iGry sre the exclusive JUICES O.!
the crediollity OF the Witnesses, aud the
weigh. OF the testimony, and L ne evil
dencs sspp)rLs the verdict, ordinarily
this c0urt will not reverse where t1s EVIL
dence is conflicting. An assignment
Of error TO the effect that TIE curt errea
il operrulins the motion for q new trisl,
there Being eight ciferent grounds III
said n rtioD, Is tor general and can not
bs considered All med. Sthyton, CD
NJ ssnuei Pscjdc R ,ii|AS Company "
O. 8 Colunie: appeal from Camp. Salt
by appe,iee 80 recover tee saiue VI a eut.
c! c!oyaes misslrg out Of tTunE uvlong
leg o apoeli2e sniia IN The Custody III
appellant company. l. As comp 1ss'ior
10y tae ,ssHn iUss g me tu~tcTrnrs;
principle upln which the measure Ct
dsmsSss rssts, il would seem tbat the
value 4 sucn goods 10 ths owner wrusd
furnish sac proper RUE upon which be
sa0ult recover; not sny t.nc'fu! price
TIA! be mignt for. specisl ressnna piscs
upoD them, nor on the Other hsnd, the
amou0i for which Be could sci! them to
other, 1as the sctusl loss in &c oney he
woe.1 d3ssie bV being deprived OF sr
ticles 81 specially adopted 70 the use Of
himself Afa-msd. ay!oo, q. j.
James q. K sines vs.. N ,.msu. Lewis &
Co; .ppesI from Shelby. Suit by So
pale~s "a "a sG.toa OF deb, ks.acalbg
goods u sppe l41 On the ground tnaE ap
a. I,kTN ~ NJ I'd
20 Gcfi-di ais creditors. l. The Court
oelo save mis- cnerge, winch was ex
csr,ed to by opp2llsDt: "Il passing
upJr ths issue 1T whether the alleged
debt t. M,ry E B mas was resi-, honest,
defendant in disposiEg Of his goods IN
pSyn9n: CT Tie saIo wss il good fsith or
other wise, the JUICY ere suthoT d to con-
slider SAC na:dre If said fscts with refer
elce 80 iaeir susceptibility OF fail proof,
and facilities, CT Wan: Of them, Of the de-
If true, BY evideEce other than, and
siso they may consider ell the
ton, s2d the testimony OF defendant in
tois kind Jury must De governed BY the
pr"pondersnce OF thu evidence, and it is
pot clear what was mean, in the charge
oy "tall proof" bnt from smother part OF
the casrgs complsiued of, the j1ry were
authorized 10 believe that only such proof
as ~ snE satisfy the minds of the jury
cnuld R9 considered ''IuIl proof" Tnus
used, the terms "full proof" and proof
Ice ~ntf -gft y,t1s1 -. ,,.,l h,,
. jay 20 mean higher degree or weight
Of eVidencs tlaa prepOniersnce.
This c1arge intlnated that the teeti
m0nG CT appellant alone, would not an
.lGc!zs verdict in his favor, II II sp-
peared that he might have produced other
testiu cry. The charge was erroneous.
2 The court also cnsrged the jury thst
they nust be "sstishsd" that appellant
sold the goods in good faith inNpEym ent
OF debt really due, xnd with no intent
to detrsud his creditors, Or otherwise TO
ind for sppellees. Held This WAS erron-
GUS. Appellant would have been entitled
to verdict II upon consideration of all
the evidence, the lary hsd been Of the
opinion that the facts necessary to re-
cover CT lin, had been established by rs
prepond rance Of the testimony. Re-
SCA o. IN -. u.
4 ". Sweeney ct 81. vs.. j. G. Conley;
sp?eal from Morris. Shit by .roellee
szs;rst Sweeney IS sheriff Cf Morris
county ead the sureties Of his T I'd ,isl
bond, for damages for levying upon TIE
property ct enc S:riugfe.low by y'r.ue cs
N attachment, appellee claiming the
goods uader Is sale from S:rIrgtellow.
Appellants defense WIS that the alleged
40 30 S,y -
creditors. l. I. WAS 70. error 70 permiE
appellee, in the court ba!oN, to AK
Ssrinaf3llow II he sold t0g sny other pug-
pose thsn to pay his deoss. Bis purpose
IN making the sale Was purely matter
Of fact. ? Ssringfellow aad the tight to
prete. certain OF mis- creditors by transfer
ring 10 than property in satisfaction OF
tnelr debts, provided that be did not
LEslsfer more than was reasonably srff
Gent t0r this purpose. 3. The surplus
was paid IN horse which was satjact to
forced sale, and which as q matter Of
iscs vas transferred by Strirefellow in
satisfaction CT IONS fiie de5s. Nd error.
Ali med. Games, j.
S z. B>iley w. j. 81. Oliver ct al; ep-
peal from Camp. Salt by appellant 10
recover the vslue 0! certain cotton levied
uN-A aEu SU4Uy Which, SppttioAb Clelkot
wts oysmpt from execution. part CT
tho cIt.oa l3yled upon WAS picked, srd .
part u7gsthefeG. l. Cotton grown upon
5 horaes tssG, upaa being sevared from
tbs lavd by gathering, became subj:c. TO
!tvs, hut until il is gathered it is exempt.
Appellant ws9 entitled TO recover the
vAius Of the usp!ched cottor, and the
Judgment should have been so rendered.
Reversed and rendered. Giinae, j.
f L & z B R'y Co. vs.. R z. Lse;
ep.esl from Camp. l. A yGilrosd CON-
psDT carpot lease its road so az to sb-
soiTs i.sslt from liability. 2 Were the
jury found greatly less than the amount
clsiBiad, cnd not more than they were
juSr6sd under The evidence, the verdict
ior taat cLuse abova Will rot DO pet aside.
) Wasre The evidence ia contradictory,
Gu: suEi3 ;ent 60 sustain the verdict, We
will uog disturb tie judgment. Affirmed.
Wsiker, J,
W. J. Allen vs.. j. G. Plummer; appeal
from Bowte. l, Articles 1864 and 3oss
OF the B3vised SsEtu.es which directs
that ne demaud Tor jury shall be naee
sEd tie j1ry fee pa!d upon, the frss dsy
CT he term Sre hot strictly mandatory,
sa6 he failure 20 make the payment on
ihst 6sy does not forfeit The right to have
c 4risi by jury, when such failure does
rot ope:a:a . tfe prs ldics CT Toe oppo-
,j4s szrfv u ~ nCs snOWn that spneIieA