Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-16
THE HIGHER COURTS.
ayntpses Of Bec'slens Rendered st The
Austin Sitting Of the Higher
CoErss OF Texts.
Supreme Court sud COURT OF sppenls De-
cisioHs-Fiuoings In Some Long
Delayed Gases.
Supreme Court
correspondence Of the Gazette.

correspondence u Tue 1hAeELe
AUSTIN, Tx, May 12-Loper vs
Western Union Telegraph Company
Essilsnd. Action for actual and exem
pIary Gamsges, fer failure TO promptly
deliver telegram sent By Loper's SOL
from Mineral Wells to Whitesboro, to the
effect that the sender was very sick, end
to come Immediately; the message wa
delivered to the company's agent st
pm, October 2, he being informed Of
the - atiopehip CT The parties. It va:
all g.6 that If the telegram had beer
promptly delivered the mother of the
sender, in the usual course Of
trsveI, would hsve reached her sor
By 2 ,. m. next dey; when she did moi
reach the point until the 4tb, she having
10 the next train after receiving the
Message, when sac arrived she was in
formed that her son had died and had
heer csrried TO Esslsnd for burial, hiv-
irG lied on the oaV previous to her ar
livL! Demurrer war irterposed to the
pe'i.i0n sui sustained by the court
Hello: l. That it vas error to sustain
the demurrer, the facts alleged being the
case within the rules IN Stuart vs.. Weat-
err Union Telegraph Company, [66sh
Tex, $50 2. The party who
sent the message acted at
the request Of plaintiffs wife and for her
beBzb this shows q contract on her
part wlsh the company. By the SCENTS
negligence she was deprived Of the con-
so.a:icu at least Of attending the burisl,
and ST f3red great distress. 8. Damages
acIuiug from personal injury to the wife
On community property, recovery msy be
had St the suit OF the husband. Reversed
and rsmanded. Gsines, Justice.
Wooidrjge vs.. EistlGnd county; from
Esstl6nd. In 1882 and 1888 Woodbridge
purchased two tracts of land. At the
time road ran between the tracts, which
hsd been used by the public, OF which use
the appellant was advised. 1t seems that
an Ordsr Of the Commission ers' court
made in 1879 appointing 9 jury to lsy out
s public road of the third class, CORE
spending with the road spoken Of, was
found; but no further order. In 1885
the court clsssed the road IS second Glass
and ordered the erection OF gates
Held: ~ Thst il under the first order
the road was actually appropriated, the
subsequent purchase OF the land by ap-
pellsnt would be with the burden of the
easement. (2) The action in raising the
road from third to that of 8 second
class road wss imposing additional bur-
dens upon the land owner without COM
pelsatior 10 which he had right. Re-
VeTssd and remanded. Walker, Justice.
Fordyce, receiver, VS.. Mary A. d Xon;
McLsnnsn. Suit bytDixon originally TO
recover damage for Injury to his wife;
pending the suit Dixon died. and the wife
in her VI right, end as next friend to
his end her CHILDREN, prosecuted the suit
70 Judgment. Nd exception was taken IS
to parties, and there was judgment fer
plaintiff the assignment of errors can
not be considered, they sre not signed,
Held: The damages to the wife WAS COM
muni!y property; the cause OF action
did not cease on the death
of the husband, the recovery was re-
stricted to such cause Of action as would
survive. The failure TO get permission
OF the United States court TO sue the re-
ceiveT, if necessary, was not excepted to
and would not therefore requirea reversal.
Affirmed. S:ayton, Cbitf Justice.
COURT OF APPEALS.
DOYLE VS.. State; Brown. Information
charging Doyle with theft of O bell and
bell collsr. Doyle had a confederate in
the theft named Russell, who did not rp-
pesl; fine OF 500 and three months i'm
pris9Dment N the county jail. Tie bell
WAS on horse belonging 20 Mr.. Me ek;
Msek started out after MS horse one
morning, hearing his bell, but before he
got to The hurse the bell ceased its tin
tintabulstions, on reaching his horse the
bell Was gone, but there were fresh horse
tracks around his horse that had the bell
on. Soon afterwards meeting with Rus
sell, ne spoke about his bell being gone,
and that the men who rode
the horses that made the track
had stolen it. Russell said that he snd
DOYLE rode the horses that made the
tracks. Meek told him then that they had
stolen his bell, Russell called him
damned liar. Meek knocked him down.
In DAP or two Meek went to Doyle's
house, taklHg another man with him.
Near Doyle's house he found his bell ona
COW belonging to Doyle. I told Doyle
the cow had on my bell, 1t was q COW
that DOYLE was milking. Doyle said that
he and Z ussell found the bell near the
Riley farm; Riley lived about mile
from Meeks house. The bell WAS defaced
and the collar cut eff. Held By the court
that there WAS no error in the conviction,
the evidence being sufficient. Affirmed.
Rorer vs.. The State; Llsno county. This
was conviction for driving cattle within
the enclosed lands Of smother. Defend
ant had pasture adjoining that of the
Riley brothers, the prosecuting witnesses
in the case. He drove bunch against
the crop fence between the two pastures
and they broke through. The evidence
disclosed that the Riley pasture had lands
in 1t belonging TO others than the Rlleys,
who hsd pasture rights inside
the enclosure; the indictment
charged the enclosed land as
belonging to the R!leys. The defendant
asked charge to the effect that If the
evidence showed that there were other
owners of the land than the Rleys the
Jury should acquit. This WAS refused
and It's refusal is assigned as error.
Held BY the court: That there is no error
in the conviction, evidence being suf-
f1cient. Affirmed.
Carter VS.. the State; Mitchell. Charge
by information with an aggravated as
ssult, committed on one. j. S. Barre.
They, it seems, were competing for the
purchase of wool. Barre accused appel
Isn't of htving false scales. Appellant
on hearing OF what Barre had said Carter
h,nSs him mn SaIIa him what ne had