Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-02-09
SUPREME COURT.
SYNOPSIS Of the Decisions Rendered at
the Present Galveston Sitting OF
The Supreme Court.
Gases Affirmed and Reversed and Re
mAnded-Important Decisions in Some
Long Delayed Gases.

GALVESTON, TEX, Feb. w. F.
Gilbert VS.. Morgan Odum ct al; error
from Jefferson county. Plaintiff in error
claimed the lots sued for by deed under
sale under Judgment and execution
against Louis King. His petition averred
that Elias T. Smith, deceased, purchased
the land with the money of King and
wife, and held It in trust for them. APP
pellees' claimed through deed from the
heirs of Smith. The issue in the case
being whether the lots were purchased
with the money OF King and wife or of
Smith. The court erred in permitting q
witness to testify that Smith in mis- life
time had told witness, that he had pur-
chased and paid for the lots in question
for home IN to8n. This declaration
was in the interest of Smith, hesrsay snd
inadmissiole. Reversed snd remanded.
Opinion by Maltbie, J. Adopted.
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway
Company vs. W. l. Coon; appeal from
Galveston county. a witness cannot be
impeGched or contradicted upon irrele-
want matter, and to allow the same Is re-
versible error. In actions for damages
for personal I'M uries If the trial judge be
of the opinion that the verdict is excess
sive he should grant new trial; he has
no measure by which to determine how
much 1t is excessive, and any attempt OF
his to do 50 Is an invasion of the rights u
the Jury. Reversed and relnsnded. Opin-
ion by Collsrd, J. Adopted.
W. b. Sinclair ct al. vs.. Henry stanley;
appeal from Galveston county. Although
one is permitted 10 defend right by
force, it does not follow that he is at lib
erty to recover by force 8 right which is
denied; the latter can only be justified in
extreme cases, such as would Justify
force in preventing crime or in arrestIng
offenders. Cooley on Torts, 16S One
is justified in taking human life under
certain circumstances and conditions in
defence of his possession of property, but
he is expressly prohibited from doing SO
to recover possession. The entry by
Stanley upon the lot, while the railroad
had active possession Of it, without the
consent Of the railroad was unlawful, and
the railroad company could have effected
his prompt removal by proper proceed
ings for that purpose; but Stanley having
obtained possession, snd neld it for sew
eral days, appellants had no right to for
chilly eject HIN by destroying his house
and removing his effects from the premi-
ses, although the railroad company may
in fact have been; the real owner. Affirmed.
Opinion by Acker, j. Adopted.
E. T. Bridges ct al. VS.. Vim. Muldrow
ct al; appeal from Grimes county. Null
drew hsving had peaceable and adverse
possession OF the land in controversy,
cultivating, using ana enjoying the same
SIS homestead for more than ten years,
he acquired perfect title thereto which
could not be Invested except in the man
ner prescribed by our statutes for convey
ing the homestead. Therefores parol ad-
iustment entered into between Muldrew
and wife and appellant will not estop the
former to deny appellants rig to re-
cover any part of the land so held and oc-
cupied. Affirmed. Opinion By Acker, ].
Adopted.
william Neyland VS.. e. W. Bendey;
error from Taylor county. The defend
ant entered upon the land by virtue of a
deed from plsintiff upon the express
agreement that whenever defendant
should sell enough to reimburse himself
for effecting partition with other par
ties, and pSy a debt owing him, he would
reconvey to plaintiff. He had realized
sufficient funds for the purpose prior to
the commencement Of The suit. Under
no circumstances can & trustee clS1m or
set up 8 claim to trust property adverse
to the cestpi que trust, nor can he deny
his title. a motion to suppress the de-
position Of 6 witness on the ground that
the interTcgatories were leading should
specify which interrogatories are objected
to, Affirmed. Opinion By Msltbte, J.
Adopted.
Joseph johnson vs.. Sabine and East
Texas Railway Company; appeal from
j ferson county. Where there Is an sgree-
mert TO use the evidence introduced in
another case, it should be made 1t part
of the statement Of facts, and have 1t
copied in its proper place in the trans
cript in the case, and uUless this is done
this court will not consider the same at
all. 1t Will not refer to the transcript in
another case. Affirmed Opinion by
Stsyton.