Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-13

mn ~ S'sA - q MaiIcAsEu tuS pSll
| IJ/kz. l-zf~ ton OF appellant /,
81. ! & +.
Es; :,cs.. - 80. -. Seuit f0r divorce
| G%a = ! fhA The petition al
| SE<s$ - III Am legged 6 &c es S g
! E<<S- MY NJ EfT cruel treRtmen
| VI ,se9455ysJ53S3 Nix snd outrsges OF
8ZzkS&g$SMI<23r liz the psrtof the de
| eAEHE- 81 fendsnt. That fol
six or seven years sppsllee had repeatedly
| hsrsssed him with studied insults ant
publicly accused him OF adultery with
various women - specifying one, ais
neighbours wife that this sccusation
caused Q scandal In the peIshborhood
and was calculated to wound appellants
feelings; that appellee hsd publicly de-
clsred that appellant WAS not the father
Of her children, born during their mar
risge. Held. Nd error In sustaining de-
murrer. The mere charge OF adultery on
the part Of the husband, made by the
wife, though the charge be often repeate
and be false, is not, under our lsw. sui
flcient GAUGE for divorce. Affirmed.
WalEer,
B. W. Boydston W. VS.. G. W. Morris;
sppeRl from Rockwell. l. In the absence
Of proof of the loss or destruction OF an
original mortgage 3 copy Of the same is
not admissible in evidence. There wss
error in the admission OF the copy of the
mortgage without proof Of loss CT the
same. Reversed and remEnded. Gaines, J. .
Hugh Suggs, next friend, vs. Travellers
Insurance Company; appeal from Bowie;
motion for rehesfing. We have care
fully reconsidered our decision of s
former day OF this tenn affirming this
csse, and are Of opinion that there Hss
no error in the judgment Of the court be-
low. Motion overruled. WIIe, c.
L. Fl Blum vs. T. S RogeTs ct al;
appeal from Hopkins. Suit by appeliees
to remove cloud from title to land. l..
Our courts have condemned the practice
Of submitting the general Issue, or issueg,
together with special issues to the jury
But where the finding upon the special
issues support the general VERDICT, and
ont the one ju gment, in drawing from
ouch facts 30 found, the conclusion of
law and upon the general verdic. can be
rendered, such ir1eeuisrity has been held
immaterial. 2 In this cage the general
verdict fading two-thiIds If the block In
controversy 20 be tGa separate property
Ct The wife, and one-third sub
jsct to execution as community
property, found against sppellees
upon the Issue Of household. IN
ore OF tie special findings OF the jury,
they found the entire block Of laLd ~
controversy to be the homestead Ct s2-
peliees. Dire garGing tie general verdict,
the court en5egeh i1dg Iezt upon ttG
special veit let. H2lG: rhe Ysrd CT be-
ing cCl!rsd. tory an therefore GGinteu:.
Giole, it cS1no. support the judgment.
8, a shoFif's sRIe Of land, If vslio, will
CTesk The Chain CT tile OF the det.adan,
in execution, remaining in CT taking pos
| session sub Iuentlg 10 the sale, and
clsimipg title under the statute OF limits,
ton Of three yeere, snd sgaiIs. the HOLDS 7
Of the title which passed by the sher 4 s
bsle Reversed srd remanded. Walker, J
e. 3, C.:ter Lumbsr Company VS. Jno.
Clay ct 81: Appeal from kaufman. /. The
temporary leasing OF ; homestead for q
year, the owner intending to return to the
same will not render the same subject to
execution. As to whether Gppellees did
so intend 20 return was q question for the
Jury, snd there being evidence 80 support
the!r finding, although the eTider &c as 10
appellets intention If abandonment was
! COZ fi.ctingI we will no. disturb their ver-
dict. Affirmed. StsysoD, G J.
paby vs. John S. Scott; appeal from
Marion. Suit By appellee TO recover
damages for personal injuries Inflicted by
the bursting of boiler. L is shown
tia. appellee Was employed by appellant
company So ght WEtchluan, his duty
0ei0g to watch t1e engine and care Of q
pjle-dTiver 81 night. Ore afternoon the
engineer being sick, requested appt lee
30 take out tho spgiDe, which he did
Arriving a. the place where the piles
were to be driver, the engine was stopped
and appellee emu others q the crew went
back TO toe cST on which the pile driver
| WAS situsled. While here the engine eX.
p'0ded and appellee was injured. l. 1.
ia ehoT1 thai appellant company had $
regulation foroidding engineers to LEI
anyone elee have charge Of their respec-
i've engines, but it Was also shown that
| this ruls WAS nos intended to be enforced
when The engineer WEs sick. Held: TIE
| rule had It's exception which was Gppli-
able az lhe time sppellee was il jursd. 2.
A servant is 10 be deemed in the masters
| erp CT wherever presen! TO perform his
duty uEder the contract crehtirg the re-
lation Of master snd se!Vsnt, and subj CT
to orders, although at given moment
he may not De engaged in the actusl per-
fornsnce of sny labor. 8 The engineer
test fl I'd that it WAS customary When sn
engineer Of pile driver got sick
| for the wltchmsn to t6ku the
train ou., and we are os opinion tbs.
tie evidence shows state Of facts which
rs CURED the appellee, as the servant OF
appellant, TO De with the train at the time
be VAS il j1red. Ia addition to produc-
| Ing evidence tending to show the iDcom-
pstenc7 CT the engineer, appellee has also
SHOWN that the engine Was defective and
urft for use. Nd error. Affirmed. Ssoy-
tori
G NJ and Nancy Houston vs.. s. 3
Callahan; appesl from HOPKINS. T q
peu!.Uu III this case gives the names anu
residences CT the plant e and deierdent;
it describes the premises in controversy
By ne.es and bounds with srffl;i9ns csr-
ainty to identity the same, and ssa!es
the county in which 1t Is situated; !; also
g!sEes tns: the lsnd described be-
lougs 10 Mrs. Nancy Houston n
her own separate right, and that she
was in possession at data named and
WAS stewards u1iaHfully disrossaased
by tie defendant. Il prsys for j1og
meat for the land with wri: for res:itu-
hon os the premises, and for such relief
genersl and special, SO Ia law ard equity
] al IN