Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-06

hrm a $40 900 judgment against the
Houston ana T,1Is Central Railroad
Company, appealed from the District
court at Limestone county, a case Of
which they nave no more juris fiction
than sn appeal from the planet Saturn
Charity may call that inaoV=rtence; but
it shows that the transcript was new
read, or, still worss, II read WAS not IN
derstood NV when triou al recedes
from former adjudicstions they conf. IS
error; when their deci ions conflict and
the bench is uncog scious OF it, they
stand selt-convicted Of lncompetency.
While it is honorable in q man TO
correcs his errors, humanity hates vscil-
lstion. IL period Of more tn4n cen
fury the United States Supreme court has
announced innumersble opinions on all
the phases ard iutricecles Of the law and
only IN the rsrest instances have its for
mer sdiuoicstions been rescindedi
aud our own Supreme court, passing
upon questions far more numerous and
i, fol-. ly more abs ruse than those oef'
he Court of App sis, seldom recede
from their own rulings or those of their
predecessors, semi colon reports e1-
cept d.
Now in Wilkerssu's case r. Court of
Appeals, Psge 2551 White Cverrul5s his
own opinion in Hels ms case Il Court Ct
Appeals, page IL, as 10 whether or not
: an Indictment for murder should alege
the location of the wound on deceased.
. White repudistes his own reasoning 10
N .lson's case thus: "Under the plain
dictates of commoQ SENSE and reason as
applied to the plaza construction aud in
teDtion Of our Statutes" etc.
Now II the opinion in WilkeTson'3 case
| / ay,1
sense" the ruling in Nelson's case is
violatiVe of the same.
Such is the only logical sequence de-
0 ducible from his own words.
j In the face Of such admissions vituper-
4; alton is disarmed.
d In Montgomery's case r. CT. Of App,
e .. 6ls1 the court oveTruled Bubbard's
= case 4sme VOL, p. 5C6l. White rendered
Il neither opinion, but assented to both.
In Webb's case 8 CT. of App, p, So
y White overruled Lipscsmb's opinion in
/ Gnerke's case Tl3 Texas Supreme court,
It p. 56S7, concurred in by Wheeler and
HempoilI, as to admission Of testimony
G of non professional witnesses when in
IT sanity vas set up as s defense. Now in
1 Thomas case 10 Tex, p. co.
1t in Ho!combe's case al Tex, p. 125
% and in McClackey's case II
y Tex. CT. of App, p. 320l, tina
= principle had been involved, ana in Nc
J. CIsckey's case the Gherke case had beer
lie reviewed, but in Webb's case White could
+ resist no longer the temptation to over
d Iule trio Of great iurists. In Hobbs
l. and Harris case RI CT. OF App p. III
g White overrules the opinion Of Roberts il
= Corr VS.. the State Il Tex. p. !, con
y CURED in by the entire bench as then con
r. stituted, although there is no real or ap
e parent conflict between the doctrine
i enunCiated in the two cases. John P. White
es seated on high, reviling and over
c. ruling the opinions OF Lipscomo
g. Roberts and their compeers: no contras
I'd more mournful is seen along the Nil
IN when thsi Ackal snsrls, sole lord of tn
&c desolste temples and deserted palaces
ly imperial Sesostris.
es But the opinions of our dead jurist
&c Will survive this petty iconoclasm, Texs
E. will not part with them, nor cease ever t
OF reverence them; Snd, Justice White, 20
ok might as we'll attempt TO take from he
e, children the oaks thst crown her hills, O
Is, the streams that gem her Wales.
g. In the case of Flynn ct al rs Court c
K Appeals, p. S9S, White, P. j., overrulet
&C. Bennett & Harris VS.. State, 80 Texas
N p. 52l, and in support of his actio
OF cites "semicolon" case, Allen VS.. th
Is, State 81 Tex. p. 2S0. Now on exam
Ie. lining Aliens case, we find In two place
b. the court apr We Bennett & Harris
s. case, the very authority they are cited t
ot disparage. Why is this? An inspectiG
re of the record indicates, alas! that Jon
II P. White WAS an attorney for Bennett
sit Harris, and lost the case in the triG
8" court, appealed and lost again. job
il Ireland was the dist let judge befoT
J.. whom the case was tried, and it was a
on Armed in 1867, and thirteen long year
E. thereafter John P. White GVails himsel
ne of his high posit on as presiding iustic
cir of the Texas Court Of Appeals to Vindi
to cate his record as sn attorney.
ne In another instance he uses the sam
RS position to clarity his record as a DistriC
he judge. In Harris cases[15 CT. Of APP
ot p. 202 Judge White sneerlDgly ellude
ho to Roberts, opinion in Smiths case 4
s Tex. p. 4441 IS "certein dicta." Tn
Id envenomed fling at o. Id. Roberts, one {
sll the most venerated names in Texas, onl
ds serves to recall public attention to on
ut of the most astounding rulings ever an
nd nounced in court of law, when you, sill
q as District judge, virtually assume
.! that SOW and pigs could become part {
OK the record and go up TO the Suprem
'e, court in the statement of facts IS
Is, part of the transcript. While no on
q is surprised at your holding thus, human
ID. ity is startled that you should, from you
on present proud eminenee, desire to perpet
IT, uAte the memory OF such folly.
rs In Hatch's case 10 Ct. of App, p. SIS
gu the court override themselves in Wat
an sons case [9 CT. of App, p 2121. 1
Id Evans case IL CT. of App, p. 370] II
IN present bench override Sullivan's cas-
OF rs CT. of App, p. 5l9J on 8 qdes
OF ton involving the construction of
On plain statute regarding the
or instability of the testimony of an absen
It, witness taken at an examining trial, one G
IS the clearest statutes in the entire body c
g, our laws.
CO In whisworth's case III CT. Of App
ed p. 414.l ], White, P. j, sssents to tn
Is proposition that q conviction for embez
es clement can be had under theft indicl
g. ment, and in the next volume Harris
ly mans case, IL CT. ofApp., p. 6l9] smilingl
81 concurs in the converse of the PROPOSE
rs ton; and these cases involved plain bu
IN great constitutional pr )positlon. Let n
ne man hereafter call Justice White obstinat
or tenacious.
IF Eou.Itu kok bn -