Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-17
pistol. Appellant claimed to be- .

Rio, Tex April 8. 1857, the state Of
Texas, county of Val Verde: Know all
men BY these presents that /, W. b.
Jones, sheriff OF Val Verde county, has
appointed ". S. Blair deputy sheriff in
and for Vsl Verde county. W. 81 Jones,
sheriff Val Verde county, Held: This
paper did not make appellant o deputy
sheriff In order for 1t to hsve been legal,
1t should have the oath Of flee prescribed
by the constitution, subscribed on the
back OF same; the certificate Of the offleer
administering the osih should have been
ell dorsed on same; and such an appoint
ment and oath should have been recorded
in the Office of the county clark, snd de
posted In said office. 2 II appellant
honestly believed he was deputy sheriff
he would not be guilty. This issue, how
ever, WAS submitted 70 the Jury and they
found against appellant. Affirmed.
Hurt,J.
A. q. Ford ct al vs.. F. B. Ingram ct al;
sppe ! from Grsyson. Suit BY appellants
against Ingram and the sureties on oils
Il cial bond as constable, to recover $3.50
actual, and $500 exemplary dam sges for
the wrongful seizure and sale OF property
alleged TO be worth S225. Appellees
pleaded to the Jurisdiction Of the court
alleging that appellants falsely and fraud.
uIently alleged their damage 70 be more
than 5000, for the purpose Of giving .sid
court jurisdiction. The court instructed
the Jury: "You are instructed that II
you believe from the evidence that the
amount due from the defendants to the
plaintiffs at The commencement of this
suit did not exceed the sum OF $500 eX-
olu ci1yo ct oSa rat 10 ,lafn
nave alleged in their petition the amount
TO be . greater sum for the purpose OF
comforting jurisdic ion on this court, then
Ytu will Il ae for the defendants plea to
the Jurisdiction and no further, but you
will return your verdict for the defend.
ants" Held: E:ror. Said Instruction
makes the Jurisdiction OF the court de-
feDd upon the amount actually due by
defendants to plaintiffs ct tae time of the
commence mant OF the suit, instead o
upon the intent and purpose OF the plsin
IF in alleging the snount cf damages.
r .VeTsed and remanded. Wilson, J.
T. W. R )binson, county Judge, vs.. b.
G. Justin ct 81 appeal from Wilbsrger.
On appeal from the justice to the county
court, this case was dismissed on the
ground that the judgment appealed from
Has not final one. In the appeal bond
the judgment Is set cut in full. Il i'd
judges that the plaintiff take nothing by
mis- quit, and that defendants recover Of
the plaintiffs the costs OF suit. The ap-
peal bond recites that "from which said
Judgment for costs the said T. W. Robins
son as aforesaid has appealed to the
county court, ETC." 1t was because Of,
this recital in the appeal bond that the
court below held that the appeal was nds,,
prosecuted from final judgment. Heliss
The construction given the appeal bondi
by the court below is strained and
erroneous one. The court erred in hold
ibg that the record failed to show that
final judgment was appealed from. Re
verse d and remsnded. Wilson, j.
Missouri Pacific Railway VS.. G. 7. Wise
et al appeal from Hopkins l II is
proper, and the better practice in suit
against an incorporated comp2ny,t to name
in the citation the local ageEt upon whom
service thereof is to be made, but this Is
not s requirement Of the Statute and Is
not absolutely essential 2. Smith, ONE
Of the plant; # in this suit, had no in
terest in any Of the property alleged &c
have been destroyed except the cotton
II is urged oy appellant company that
there ia sn improper joinder OF parties
Held: Uader our liberal system CT
pleading aud practice, the plaintiffs beirg
properly and necessarily joined as to q
portion OF the claim for damages, the
suit may be maintained by them Jointly as
to the other dsm.ges claimed.
3 The court erred in refusing 20
LET appellant prove that the grass
and pasturEge alleged to have been de-
stroyed, were CT small value, or of no
value, owing to the Cry and dead condi-
ion Of the same at the time they were
destroyed. Il was error for the court
to refuse TO let appellant prove that ap
pellees, By the use OF ordinary effort, and
At moderate expense, could have avoid
ed some Of the damage claimed By them
3. It was also error TO permit appellee
10 prove, ever the obj :ctions CT defend
ant, what the gown and unmAtureG
cotton crop would have made had 1t not
been destroyed. Reversed and remsnded.
Wilson, j.
W A Byrd vs. the State; appeal from
Palo Plnto. Conviction for theft Of est
tie. l Where II Is shown tbs: the writ
ten testimony Of deceased witness had
cen taken before an examining court,
and that the sam2 has been lost, and 1t
WAS not shown hat the prosecution in
which the testimony was taken Was
sssirst the defendant, and that he Was
sfordpd the privilege OF cross.exsmins-
ton of said witness at the tine said tes-
timony was taken proof OF what said de-
ceased witness testified would not be sd
Missile, q ST fficient predicate not hav-
ing been laid. 2. Article 5s5 OF
the code Of criminal procedure, which
It qulres the clerk in case OF change
Of venue, bsfors transmitting the original
papers in the cause, to make correct
copy Of the ssme, etc does not require
him to make such copy Of testimony
taken before an examining co7It. 8. It
vas error to admit the testimony OF the
witness Tucker over defendants oo1ec-
tions, In go far IS it related TO the au-
thority under which he acted in selling
cattle in Memphis, and the disposi-
ton made By HIM Of the proceeds OK said
sale. These matters were res int: aliss
scts ana Irrelevant. 1t WAS material
error to admit same because 1t tended tc
prove the cattle found In Memphis by
said witness. reversed ard remanded
Wilson, j.
St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway
vs. j " Hodges; appeal from Navarro.
In this csse the evidence fustsins the
III