Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-05

\ M I 4Gu-SkCI ny ell 6G'
| >,'LSZ-%- ~, CINE Of appell.n
! >. i.
80! -. -: =. y TasNn while he Wa
rS - ! Nm, standing on III;
: sZ/Sl"-.,, - III h,HA track Ct sppellan
, w WI ~ bEi company. l. Tee
! IN H,ts5EI@I3 k5b lsW does not per
*L,S.$S&a3y3%:HIt1SF ~ NIT Z person *
=. y ny - rely upon the sp
preaching engine TO give hin warning o7
signals. 2. l. is the duty OF persons in
chargh Of railway train to ring the bel
or blow the whistle a. q distance CT
eighty rods from the place where suy
railrcsd CROSSES any streetin town snt
to continue suci ringing or blowing Until
the train shall have crossed the street.
8. The proof being that there was moth
ing in from: Of the engine TO prevent the
engineer from seeing sppelsnt, who was
standing with his back towards the en
CINE, Il wss not error in The court &c
charge the Try to the effect that the
plaintiff cou.d recover, although he put
! himself in point OF danger, if the person
In charge Of the engine saw him In tine
to warn him OF danger by giving the
signsl and failed to 60 1t. The bell was
not rung nor the whistle blown. Toe
evidence suppo t, the verdict. Affirmed.
Giinee, J.
he. Wright vs.. Lem ". Lsssiter; ap-
peal from Red River. Trespsss to try
title. L. A snerift's deed in referring to
other deeds which are shown to have
been well known, snd which described
the land, wss sufficient to identify the
land sold. 2. a license by one par!y to
the other to occupy part of the land ia
dispute, is not equivalent to q mutuM
agreement upon q division line, although
such license eX ended to the cccupa-
ton up to the lice claimed by the
party TO whom the license was
given. ). Possession under 60 ire
corded bond for title Of part OF the
land described in the bond, and not In
dispute, is not notice Of claim to that
part In dispute. in the absence O. notice
of such claim to the plaintiff in e1ecu
ton, or to the purchaser at execution
sale, the levy ead sale passed title, the
legal title appearing Of record in the de-
fendant in execution. Reserved and re-
msuded. Walker, j.
ST. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern
Railway vs.. Mary Mccormick: Appeal
from Bowie. Suit by appellee for dam
ages for the death CT her husband alleged
to have been caused by the negligence of
appellant in Miller county, Ark. The
petition alleged that appellant was cor
poration chartered under the laws OF the
United States, and running trims
from 81. Louis. Mo 10 TeIsrksua, Ark.
The statutes Of Arkansas relating 20 such
suits were set out. The petition alleged
tlat deceased left no children, or any
blood relation, and thst there was no ad-
minis.raiion pending upon the estate. L.
TIE cause of action exhibited In the
record, arising under and to be deter
mined by the laws OF Arkansas, which are
so dissimiisr in many respects from the
Texas statutes, can not be here enforced.
2. Comfy extends only to enforce obi
cations, contracts end 1ighte, under pro-
visions Of lsw CT other countries, which
are enslsgoue, or similsr to those CT TINS
STATE, where the litigation arises. Re.
versed and dismissed. Walker, j.
, Henry D Young ct sl. vs.. Frank Kuhn;
appeal from Bowie. Suit by sppellee to
recover damages on account Of tTo
l1belous publications alleged to have been
made by appeIlsut in the TeXsrkska Daily
Independent. One Of these publications
is alleged to have been mace August OH,
1886, and consisted Of an accusation
char ing appelee with selling for food,
diseased and unwholesome meats.
Shortly after this appellee WAS arrested
for selling diseased meets for food snd
was acquitted. Shortly after his scquittal
smother libelous publication appeared,
which consisted IL the main OF the
evidence sdduced by tha prosecution
Appellee also Joined an sci!cn for ms
l;o, nrti h.cnd
ton referred to. l. On the trisl appellee
was permitted to read in eviderce, over
the objections Of appellants, so much Of
the answer as alleged the truth OF the
matters charged in the two publications
Held: This testimony was not admissible
as 8 republication to show malice. Ghis
question is well settled. 81 rexss, 957;
R S., 1862; 81 Texas, 626 2. Ga the
trial appellee WAS permitted to prove that
appellants were possessed Of considerable
property, and this is assigned as error.
Held: The adjudicsted cases upon this
question are conflicting, and 1t may be
that the greater number hold thkt tbs
testimony was admissible, but we can
not give our assent to any such
principle. A rule which makes the
true bssis for damages, not the injury
il tiicted, but the ability Of the offending
person to pay, to our minds, finds 20
sanction in principle, and II applied
would lead to results most embarrassing
in the administration Of justice. Ii
evidence of psrty's wealth bs sdmissi-
ole for the purpose of showing his
ability to pay large smount, on the
other hand party should be allo owed to
show his poverty and disability to pay
damages. No sound principle OF law toll.
crates such practice. The question be-
ing al open one in this state, in view of
the contiic. OF decisions, we feel author
leo to adopt the rule which seems to us
best supported BY principle, uniform in
It's operation, OF easy application. and
avoiding collssersl inquiries. The test.
monY was iusdmissiole. Reversed and
remanded. Stsyton, c. J. 4
Whitaker & Galloway vs. E. A. Alldayj
ct al; appeal from Csss. l. a defend
snt, Ia order to sustain his claims for
nts, must aver and prove that
be and those under whom he claims have
had adverse possession in good faith Of
the premises in controversy for at least
one year before the commencement OF the |
suit. 2 Where land is sold under exc
:ution, aad at the time OF such sale is in
possession CT parties who have leased 1t |
IN good Iaith from the defendants in exc
:ution, the purchaser st execution sale
cannot recover rents Of the lessees for |