Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-27

i
ing Of the deed to the land, or to turn the |
cattle he received on the contract from
White back to White. 1t is commended
conversion of the cattle, that White had
cattle or their value, S105. Held by the
court: This was not an action for con-
version of property, but WAS to recover
the value Of property paid BY White to
Lindsey on contract which was broken
by him. The judgment isfully supported
by the evidence, and Is In all respects cor
rect. Affirmed.
Missouri Pacific Railway Company vs..
Hugh G wyn; from Tarrant county. Action
ter damages for willful and gross negli-
gence in falling to erect suitable cattle
guard on the line of the railway, and at
the intersection of Gwyn's fence sepsra-
ting his pasture from his cultivated fields,
whereby q fine stallion of Gwyn was
ruined. The facts are these: Gwyn had
his pasture fenced from his cultivated
| lands; the railroad traverses both; at the
place where the railroad enters the pas
ture from his cultivated lauds, the CON-
pAny instead Of building proper
cattle guard fenced their right
of way with bsrb wire, from where the
railroad entered his pasture, for about
125 yards to where there was bridge, thus
forming 3 lane, terminating on the bridge
at one end aud on Gwyn's cultivated
land at the other. Gwyn turned his stall
lion into the wheat on his cultivated land
on the day Of the accident. He got into
the lane ahead of train and to escape
being run over had to b.eak through the
barb wire fence, and was SO injured as to
become worthless; he had special value
also. Gwyn recovered $500 damages. 1t
was shown that Gwyn had Of
ten complained of the wire fence
and of the failure of the company to
erect cattle guard. Il is urged that 1t
WAS error to admit preof as to the special
value of the stallion over the market
value of such horse. Held by the court:
The petition alleges aud the proof estab-
fishes gross negligence, and special
actual damages. There is no error in any
ruling of the court, or in the charge for
which the judgment should be disturbed.
The judgment NAV be excessive, but 1t Is
not clearly so. Affirmed.
Finley vs. S. E. Wright, ct 81; from
Grsyson. Action for trespass, in unlaw-
fully taking and converting to their own
use certain personal, by S. E. Wright as
constable, under a writ of attachment
sued out before justice of the peace,
appellant alleging that he had purchased
the goods SO seized long before the levy
of the writ, for valuable consideration,
from one j. A. Brown, and was
| 10 possession of the same
st the time of the levy.
The suit was against Brown, and the
goods were levied on as his property.
There was trial, and judgment for the
defendants against Finley. 1t seems that
the main issue was as to the bona fide
of the sale from Brown to Finley, and as
to the solvency Of Finley, several wit
nesses testified. The plaintiff asked
several charges which were refused.
Held by the court: The judgment is cor
rect upon the evidence and the law and
there is no material error shown for Its re-
dersal. Affirmed.
Stringtellow VS.. the State; from Houston
county. Indictment for assault with
intent to murder, four years in the peni-
Tertiary. 1t seems the defendant accosted
one Bynum, the assaulted party, while
Bynum WAS on his way to Crockett in q
two horse wagon; that appellant asked
BSnum If he had said thst Chez appellant
had stole his (Bynum's) hogs; Bynum
said he had not said so, out that he had
said that Chez appellant was claiming
some hogs Of Mrs. Langstons, thereupon
appellant gave BYnum the id lie, and
these compliments were passed from one
to the other until appellant closed
by using his six-shooter on
Bynum. Defendant made an appli-
cation for continuance on account of the
absence of his wife by whom he expected
to prove that said Bynum had tempered
with her and advised her to forsske de-
PENDANT in his sickness and let him die,
and she would be better of; and that
said Bynum had persuaded his wife to
quit him and let him die. This applica-
ton was overruled and bill Of exception
reserved. Held by the court: There was
no error in refusing the continuance
the absent testimony was immaterial.
The evidence is sufficient, and the charge
is correct. No error in the conviction.
Affirmed.