Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-19

EXA eEatgE%a shA = f "eldeman
HZfT#S&I5NllzgF 1iH- vs., the S;s.e; kp-
AWlSsI - peal from Ellis
Conviction for exposure Of the person
There are neisha- statement OF fscts OF
bills OF exception in the rec Ird. N error
sufficient to, warrant reversal. Aft med
WilIeoS, B.
Dkueht Moose VS.. the State; appeal
from Z lis. Cow ction ~; gambling.
1. The statement Of fEc:s was filed more
than tea days after the Adjournment OF
court, and can Lot therefore be consid-
cred 2 In the absence OF q statement Of
facts, the motion for 8 new trial shows no
ground FOR disturbing the conviction.
Affirmed WILSON, j.
john S Jsck.on vs. the Safe; appeal
from Smith, Conviction for unlswfuly
carrying q pistol TIE evidence is direct
and positively establishes the detendsnt's
guilt co7c!usiv p, Thsre was 10 error
in the charge or ID any ruling Of the court
calculated 10 III ire toe rights CT appel
IEut Afi med Wilson, j.
". L Br0H1ys. The Safe; appeal from
Smith, On moIion 10 dism.ss the gppeEl.
The recoga!z ,nce recites the ofsnse OF
which appellant WAS convicted 10 be ''un-
lawfully scting as al irsuraEce agent"
Appellant WAa tried and COW Cted tor
soliciting lie insurance. for The X M lckY
Mulrai security Fund when said c0rspsny
had rot compiled with the requirement
CT the lava Of this state, and had poI re.
ceived s certificate CT su!ao-i!y from t1e
com missioner CT iEsuraace, srs,istcs
and history OF the state CT Texas as re-
q1i;ed Gy law Hello: The reco SuizaH2e
sufficiently describes the CEanse MUtinn
&c dismiss oVeIru!ed Wilson, J.
joseph Matthew'S vs. Western UuiOR
Telegraph Company; appeal from Gray
soa. Suit By appellant for non.delivery
OF O telegram cent him b7 his wife, or her
authority, infor mig him Of her danger
Gus illness and erecting him 10 come
home on first train. Tae pstiH0n alleges
that the company could Ieadiiy have
found appellant aud delivered ,he meg
sage--that on account OF the failure to
deliver said message his wife was de-
prived Of his presence and much needed
attention and assistance, that for the
want OF guch attention and assistance ss
he would have been able to give her she
suffered excrucisting ply steal pair, great
mental anguish, and was outraged in her
feelings, and that her health was ruined
Appellee excepts to the petition on the
ground that the damages sought
were not actual, but exemplary, and that
no facss were alleged IN the petition
which rendered appellee liable for exem-
plAry damages. The came Was sustained
and the petition dismissed. From thst
Judgment this appeal iss tSken. Held:
Suc1 damages as are here claimed sre not
exemplary, pQt actual damages. This
view OF the case vas taken by our su-
prenlt court II sc Texas, $50, and sesin
IN 3 case decided ST the present Tyler
term few days since. TIE court erred
Ia Gism!ss!aG the petition. reversed snd
remsnded Wilson, j.
Missouri Pacific Railway Va. ". P
Hill; appeal from Anderson. Suit
By sppellee 10 recover damages alleged
to have been sustained By peglg>
ace OF appellant company. II is
shown thai appellee IVES an en-
ploye Of appellant. He was q "helper"
shout tie machine shops Gpd did any,
thing the foreman objected him to do He
IVES one Day directed 20 take large ham
mer and 81 assistant GnG drive the rlvets
out Of an iron boiler HsSelesssG hammer
but the foreman sent aud got ore he
selected and sent him another. His
assistant was 10 uss the hammer
in driving Gu !! the riye:s. Tie hammer
weighed shout eight pounds, When the
appellee was holding the punch .Eior the
assistant 10 strike, the IS isttut made one
light stroke to measure The aistsnce, ard
then proceeding 30 strike with all mis-
might, the hammer flew CT the hsndle,
striking appellee on the mead, whereby be
was greatly il lret. 1. ia shown that ep-
pareptly the hammer was all right and ehe
company did not know it Was loose. APP
pellSrt pleaded genera! denisl and CON l..
Tri3utory negligence +oi appel
lee CT his fellow servants.
Held: The liability of the master to the
servant for irj1fies resulting from the
use Of defective implements ART 81 from
She fGet that 1t is the duty Of the master
20 furnish Implements not detective, and
the servant, unless the detect be patent,
may assume that the master in this re-
spect has performed his duty. 2. II is
not the duty OF the servant to assume and
exercise the duties Of sn inspector, that
he may detect imperfections in imple-
ments not open to common observation 4;
but If he knows Of such impeTiections
then IL is incumbent upon him not TO ex-
pore himeelf to dangers reEulf!rg from
Ghsm, 3. Tie. rule that the, master must
exercise proper csTe 10 finnish ssfe MS
Chirery and app,iI nc 8 10 perform the ger
tends 10 gil classes Of business. No error.
Affirmed. White, 2. J.
SUPREME COURT.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
TYLER, TEX Nov Il, lssS.
J. P Hague Vs. a. 81. Jackson, error
Irom L Paso. Suit by anpelIse on q
ptCmn soIy note sid to for close mort
gsgs. l In : suit by = mortgage 20
forCclose his mortgage, same being S
second mortgage, the holderCt the senior
mortgage is not necessary party de-
fsldsrG. .. The no.e and mortgage In
iroduced in evidence, bore date Of April
4, 1885 The petition recites that they
bear date CT Msy 4, 1885. The j1dg-
ment rec.tes that same bs4- Gate CT M2y
4, 1855 II is insisted By appellant ii st
the Eecitels in the judgment that
tie note and mortgage on
which ms Judgment was reECered
were Of dste May 4, 1855, and that this
Is conclusive Of the fact that the jadg.
meet WHs rendered on cause Of actor,
not alleged in the petition. Held: The
recitAls in the Judgment we're not neces.
Sary. and il from the whole record, it aps
DeArs with reasonable certkintv that IL