Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-26

because Of the iEsu cheney Ct he sppssl
bond. The appeal bood WAS conditioned
"that the defendant shall prosecute her
appeal with effect, and shall paw such foe
aad costs SIS may be sdjudged against her
by the County courf, as Well es other
Costs that may be s0iudged against her
il the court below" Held: Dismissal Ct
the appeal bond VISA error. r vsr2ed and
repanded. HUT, j.
W;lev Norman VS.. the State sppesl
from Red River. Conviction for murder
In tie second degree. l. The jury stall
be 81 liberty to determine ia every case,
whe her under sll the circumstances the
ineultiDg words were the real cause which
provoked tie ki lTg. Where the Issue is
feirly pre- sented to the jury, IS to whether
the insulting language used 1ss the resi-
cause OF the homicide, /; there Is evidence
TO support the v5rGict We will not revise
heir finding. There Hss evidence 80 10
insulting Language snd previous diff:ui
tiss, and 1t was the province Ct the jary
81 say which WAS the resi- csuse OF the
1smicide. 2 L. WAS not error III the
court to refuse chs-ge On seli-defense,
mere being no evidence 70 wErrsDt s.ua.
M reversible error. Affirmed. Hurt, J.
COMMISSION CT APPEALS.
Western Union Telegraph Com nsnr, vs.
L. NJ Cooper; spresl from Johnson.
Suit by sppellee to recover damages fer
NON delivery OF stelegrsm. l. X j1ry 10
feelings csused by failure 10 deliver s
message relsti9g 20 domestic sfaiTs,
where the failure !. the result Of
negligence on the part Of the company,
Or its servants, is su element Of Actual
t<msga. The right t. recover would not
depend upon the degree OF negligence
causing the iTj1r7. ., The husband is
be proper parry 20 bring suit for such
irjartes 10 his wife. 5. The death
Of the child before birth and
the grief or SORROW cccssloned
hereby can net he al clement Of DIM
sges In this character OF suit. 4 Thu
fSilu-e Of tha company TO deliver the mes
ssse 20 the doctor who YVES 70 attend The
wife OF sppelisn' IN Childbirth cannot b'
: ground Of damages fer lriurY to the
feelings Of The husband, This is too re-
mote aud c9nst quenti.l- The c7uri
shou l.va given Q epecisl charge TO the
Jury asked bY csfaEdsnt 20 the 4 CT ths!
even II there WAS negligence il the De
livery f the message yet, Il By thu eIe:-
ton proper care or ita rnct itc0Uid no
have been delivered IN tim f)r D.. Kesti0g
to have rescued the DS,ient sad As2.st3.:
in the delivery Of the cEilG, plaintiff could
not recover damages r3r the pain enC
suffering claimed The court should
have given tie special instruction or
dsred oy the defendant 10 the fsct that
II party has koown place Cf residence,
End kaosn place OF business in city.
Is was no part Ct defendants duty 70 hunt
sid party upon the stress, ant tie fail
ure 70 90 do would be nc evidences CT neg
lig2rca. Reversed ana rema3ded, C5l
lard, j.
G -orge z Afford vs Walter Il Jope-;
soo.sl ltogu Archer. Trespsss to Try TILE
|. Cae act OF 1874 having omitted 20 At
.xGa a, cher 10 any county for judicial
purposes" IL VIC uld Tor such purposes o.
with IN the Jurisdiction OF .ne county GU
Of wo CT II has been created Until tat
usssc &c Of the lsw CT 1879 attaching i
sm9ng ether counties to Clay, and dEr;ng
the lsss men.ioaed period frjm 1874
60 1879, under the opeF@
tioa of the law of 1866
IL woRld be attached 10 Jsck county 80;
ether purposes" There was no law Il
lc Cay county OF conVeyances TO Iaod
rendered. Hobby, j.
Frieterg, Klein &; Co. vs.. T. G. johnson
ct 81. appeal from Cooke. Suit by ap-
pel!ants against Jocnsor, ss sheriff ut
COOka county and his sureties on ais OF
fcial bono, to recover damages for in
iurias alleged &c have bsen sustained by
goods leyied upon By appellants, sad IL
tie hands OF the sheriff l. The accept
\ hn Il 2
rot e5top him from defending against this
m1tI0n upon The ground mat the goods
were rot the property CT the defeadsnt
ii attachment a: the time the wiz
was levied. 1t is the duty OF
parties TO request additional Instructions
on poin' whc ia their opinion are moi
fully covered by tie cour!, and If such
Instructions are refused, then to csll the
attention Of this cours by proper assign
meBts OF error to the refused charges
3. WlGre 81 assignment Of errors ia,
that "the count erred II refusing the
special Instructions asked" and there
are iva pecisl charges referred, this
court Will not consider 6uch an assign
N nS.
No reversible error IN any CT the
charges given. Affirmed. Acker, 2. j.
LIE 6lke l4sLu Euu SSGLsS W
J0hn Chisholm; sppesl from Wichite
Trs spaes 50 try tite An application Il r
continuance should htere the diligence
used by applicant, and should state such
fsctg 80 would place the court IN posses!-
ion OF such Information as would enable
1t to determine from the application slone
VIA: diligence had been used, and II the
fscts stated do not show the exercise OF
proper diligence, the application should
be refused. 2. An original record book
containing deed is admissible for the
purpose OF proving that deed has been
recorded. The court erred in excluding
sdch record. Reversed and remanded.
Acksr. P. J.
z A. Burns rs. Susan Ross ct al ap-
peal from Burnes county. Suit bvsppel
Isn't to recover from sppellees leo acres
Of laud, alleged 10 hsve been purchased
b? appellant, and the consideration fur
n!shed By him, aud the coed being made
to W. B. Rose, wlt0o1. his knowledge OF
couoens. Appellant It quessed this charge:
"The promise, il any, made By W. B. ROSE
&. the time of receiving .ne deed to the
land in controversy, will ent!tle Plaintiff
TO recover, whether sucn promise was az
express promise or sa implied promise
and, such promise will be implied If the
ilry bslieye that pls!ntE furnished She
Aensldesstion for the purchase Of said
lad" Held: The refusal Of this charge
&&s}snyersibis erroS. Reversed and rs.t