Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-02-01
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopses of Decisions Rendered at the Present
Galveston Sitting of the
Higher Courts.
SUPEENIE COUET

J. w. Stayton, Chief Justice, presiding; r. R.
Gaines and J. L. Henry, Associate Justices.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
GALVESTON, TEN, Jan. CIV. h.
Dupree ct al. vs.. J. n. Estelle; appeal
from McLennan. Motion for rehearing.
The evidence referred TO in the first as
signnant should have been admitted
W. L. Prather, witness for plaintiff,
was asked on cToss-eXamin alton whether
ornot Dupree came to him before the
property was sold and consulted with him
as to what effect certain things, if done,
would have: whereupon he told
Dupree that il would only be
mortgage. On = redirect
examination, he was asked what reply
Dupree made, which was objected to on
the ground that Dupree could not thus
make evidence for himself, and the evil
deuce excluded. Held: Error. It was
shown by the bill of exceptions that his
answer was that, if such was the case,
he would have nothing 10 DO with it. The
true rule Is that the plaintiff having drawn
out part OF the conversation the de-
PENDANT was entitled 10 Introduce in evil
denCe the whole conversation if il con-
tanned matter relevant to the issue The
court also indicate the proper method of
stating the account by allowing per
cent. interest on each debt and credit
after certain date. Reversed and re-
mauded. Opinion by Gaines, associate
Justice.
W. L. Red ct al. vs.. A. R. Morris:
from Travis county. suit by appellants
against appellee, tax collector, TO re-
strain the sale of property for the taxes
of 1857 The injunction was dissolved
and this appeal taken. The property was
claimed TO be exempt rs used exclusively
and owned by the plaintiffs for school
purposes. in Red vs.. johnson T63 Tex.
2S41 this same place then owned 10y ap-
pellants' parents was held not exempt
from taxes OF former year, il appearing
that il was not used exclusively for school
purposes, as the family also occupied it
as a residence. That case Was held not
res adjudicata.
In the present one the plain
tiffs were unmarried and re-
NAMED on the premises only to take
care Of them and as a part of their bust
ness of teaching, and as incident thereto.
Held: That it was exempt and within
the rule laid down in CasSiano vs.. Ursu-
line academy, "a Texas, GA.
Revised Statutes, article 4G73, section
2. construed to mean that the property
must be used 10y the owners for such eX-
empt purposes. If leased by the owners
TO others who so use them they are not
exempt Reversed and rendered in favor
of appellant ahd the injunction perpetu-
ated. Opinion by Gaines, associate
Justice.
County Of Galveston vs.. Galveston
wharf county; from Galveston. There
was no error in the action of the court
below, except its refusal to allow interest
which is here given, as this was a suit
like that Of the same county vs.. Calves
ton gas company, decided a few days
ago, and the tax payer is entitled to re-
cover back illegal taxes with interest
thereon, when the same were paid under
compulsion aud protest. This case differs
from the one named, in that wharf
privileges are taxed. Held: Such tax
was authorized by General Laws, 1874,
page PA, and is valid, regarded either as
a tax on the corporate franchise or the