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

] !: !: J !:
An Io--HNlihm Tes-
1851 tsrd vs.. the State !;
M%$sN appeal from Con-
MA Zales. On motion
49,, TSS&N for rehesrIng. The
W ,K%"N1 grounds of the
zZzH AsA>tH} raotion are not
M fTY!Ss,~ a good and were
H//AEH IsEait fully considered in
TsssS& YIN. passing upon the
y 3 ! T 4 !
~ = nm record of former
kIAS, "a Ia AVN day of this term
EME, S2gJHa5 HI when the casa was
NJ HE&@EzI kT s&rmed. Motion
@ZZC%ExyzIz4F ~ overruled. Will
AEg5 son, j.
j. A. Powell vs.. the State; sppesl from
Palo Pinto. Conviction for tneIt OF cattle
None Of the bills Of exception are main
tainable. The charge of the court WAS
full and correct. No error 10 the con-
vlction. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Scotty Hedgecothe vs.. the State; ap-
peal from Rsines. On motiNn to dismiss
the appeal. The recognizInce cites the
same offenss as charged in the Informs
ton, and the motion to dismiss on that
ground Is not well taken. Motion to
dismiss appeal ovelruled Wilson, j.
Bill Robinson vs.. the State; sppeal
from Colorado. On motion for rehesring.
The motion has been fully considered.
We see no reasons for change CT our
opinion Of G former day of this term,
wnen this case was affirmed. Motion
overrulsd. Wilson, j.
Scotty Hedgecothe vs.. the State; appeal
fro n Raines. Conviction for unlswiully
pisyiug cards in public place. There
are 10 statement of facts in the record or
bills Of exception. There WAS NO error In
the Judgment Of conviction In the court
below. Affirmed Wilson, j.
1. L. Stone vs.. the State; appeal from
Hunt. On motion for rehearing. The
motion for rehesring having been duly
considered, a. d the court being OF opin
ion that there Is no merit in the same, the
motion will be overruled. Wilson, j.
a. W. Bailey vs. the State; appeal from
Hopkins. The record IN this case shows
that no notice Ct appeal was given by ap-
pellsnt in the court below, ard the as
sistant sttorney.general moves to dis
miss on that ground. Held: Motion well
taken. Appeal dismissed. Willson,..J.
George BIsnkenship vs.. the State; sp-
pesl from NIvsrro. On motion for re-
hearing Il being shown to the court
that under the law es 1t now Is the escape
OF appellant was complete, this fact de-
prives this court of jurisdiction. Motion
overruled. Wilson,.
A N. Afford vs. N. A. Matthews; ap
peal from Var ZIndt. The transcript in
this case WAS no. filed In due time, as res
quired by Law, but there being en- agree-
msnt In writing Of counsel for appellee
for the same 70 be filed, the clerk will duly
file same. WILSON, j.
Ed Vlerno ct 81. VS.. Household Sewing
Machine Company; appeal from Smith.
Il having been shown to the court by sp-
pellants thar correct transcript Of this
cause. as tried in the court below, has
not Deen brought up to this court, and
appellants applying for writ of GER
tiorari to forfeit the transcript, the GER
tiorart will be granted as prayed for,
Wilson, j.
Jim Crump vs.. the State; appeal from
Rains. On motion to dismiss appeal.
There ig motion to dismiss the appeal
en- the ground that the re cOgnizance fails
, to recite the offense rs set out in the in
formation. Same has been duly con-
sidersd and will be overruled. VIII
son, j.
J A Montgomery VS. :he State; appeal
from Rams. Conviction for aggravated
assault ard battery. There are no state
ment Of fects Of bills Of exception in the
record. No reversible error apparent OF
record. Affirmed. Wilson, J.
L J Perry Vs. j. N Parker; error from
Hunt. On moion to sfi m on Certificate
Suit to recover. Suit on 6 promlssory
note and to foreclose q deed o! trust On
900 head Ct steep. Held: The certificate
is dismissed because the record fails to
show tia. the county court has jurisdic-
ton Of the amount in controversy. Il is
not shown what the value Of the 800 head
of sheep was. Dismissed. Wilson, J.
i'm Crump vs.. the Safe; appeal from
siGs. Conviction for upls1fully plsyirg
;srds IN public plsc,. N statement OF
facts or bills Of exception are shown by
the transcript Nd fundamental error
apEarelt Of record. All med. Wilson, J.
John Andrew johnson w. the ate;
sppeal from Houston. Conviction for
T pc, with the death penal:y assessed. l
Where the pr jddice against the defend
ant, II any In fact existed, Is confined to
his own neighoorhood and none Of the
jurors are from that locality, 1t is evi-
dent defendant cannot be injured by req
Of any prejudice or bliss IN said local.
ity sgainst him The record fails to chow
an error, or even an irregularity. At
ti.red Wilson,.
Gull, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway
vs. E L. King; appeal from Collin.
l. Where crop is iIjared or destroyed
the measure Of damages is the actual
value cf the crop which was Injured or
destroyed at the time CT such injury or
eSestruction with interest on the amount
Hcm that date. 2 The measure Of actual
damage done to growing crops is the df-
Ersrcs between the value Of such crops
Immediately after the irj1ry and their
value Immediately before. The rjary sc
to value should be confined to the very
tine o. the injury, or destruction, and
should net extend to the date of maturity
Of the crops, nor to tie market value
when matured and gathered. 8 Where
plaintiff RECEIVERS judgment in the Justice
cour', and on appeal slso RECEIVERS i1dg-
ment in the County court, but for less
smount, be shall pay the cos g Of the JUS
tice court. Reversed and remanded
White, P. j.
A. NJ. March vs'L. S. Williams; sp-
peal from Montague. 1. There con be
nothing clearer than thst where 8 jury has
int 'vened and ell the issues have been
60 Ae ar< h,