Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-17

overruled. The eviderce was sufficient
SCH, J.
Texas Trunk Railway Company vs. J.
A. UoWdy; appeR! from Dallas. The
record fails to show any error in such
manner SIS this court can consider and
vas committed Affirmed. Wilson, J.
st Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway
VS.. o Johnson; eppesl from Bowie. The
evidence in this case il clssriy sufficient
to suslsin The verdict. The charge Of the
is no reversible error in the court below.
Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Missouri Pacific Railway vs.. W. S.
King ct sl. spresl from Collin. There
was no material error N the court below.
The charge Of the court was warranted
by the law and eVideIce. The evidence
is So sicient to sustain the verdict. There
WAS no reversible error. Affirmed. Will
son, J.
George Wilson, slies Joe Bowers, vs..
the State; appeal from Hardin. Il Is sp>
parent Of record thst no notice OF appeal
was given IN the court below, srd or this
ground the assistant attorney general
moves to dismiss the appeal. Hel : TIE
motion is sus'sined and the appeal will be
dismissed Dismissed Wilson, j.
Rosedsle Street Railway Company We.
j Il. Msrsindale: sppesl from Tarrsnt
Sui. by appellee to recover S20e damages
for the alleged negligent killing Of dog
by appellant company, the property Of sp-
pc lee; Judgment for appellee for S 80.
The evidence is amply sufficient to sus
tain the verdict. The charge Of the court
was fair and correct. TEere VAS no re-
verible error In the court below. Affirmed.
Willsor, j
WI. Woodley vs. J 4. Hsrkrider &
Co. appeal tom Harrison. Ga motion
for rehesring. The points raised in this
mo.lon for rehesring we're fully consid-
cred on former day of this term, when
this case was passed upon oY this court.
We ara OF opinion that the decision rem
dered at former day WAS correct. Mo-
lion overru!ed. Willson,J
Missouri Pacific Rsilw,y vs.. Joe BIa-
sheer; appeal from Hopsi2s. Appellee
In his petition cla;med 81 per Gcrs to
eighty acres CT tuIi, for damage By fire
alleged to hsveibeen caused by the negli-
gence Of appellant He recovered SIS IS
ss damages for same, s18 IS more thsu
prayed for. The eppelle files in this
court remittur ss to tha excess. Held:
The iudgmec. below will be revised and
al med at the cost OF the appellee. Re-
vised snd affirmed. Hur,, J
j. B. Johnson VS. the State; appeal
from Ssn Augustine. Ga motion for re.
hssripg. l. Where the fac assessed il
the county court In case appealed from
An inferior court does not exceed 500,
the Judgment Of the county court is con-
elusive, and no appeal from it can be en-
tertsiped by the court OF sppeals. 2.
Where, by Law, the county court has not
iQris 1icticn Of misdemesnor cases,
out Jurisdiction 10 conferred on
the district court Of the same,
thu above ruie remains unchanged.
3. independently of the provision OF the
statute, the plain OF jsot, intent, and pur-
poseef our constitutional and statutory
provisions upon the subject, is to limit the
light Of sppesl TO this court in cases orig
mating in Justices court, and appealed
the..ffom in any intermediate tribunal
WHEREIN the judgment rendeTed,.sr fine
imposed does not exceed 51t0. SaIotion
for rehes.lng oyerrUled. White, P. j.