Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-10-16
SUPREME COURT.
Synopses Of Dec 'sIons Rendered at the Present
TYLER kittin,.

synopses OF Dec stons Rendered at the Present
Tyler lifting.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
TYLER, TEX, Oct. I'm L. Adams vs.. B. F.
Adams; from Shelby. suit by appellant for
divorce. Appellants petition alleged certain
acts as ground Of divorce, as follows: During
q dance at the house OF appellee he was in
toxicated and attempted to hurt one of the
guests but was restrained by his wife, the ap-
pellant, who grabbed h pistol, when he jerked
it from her hands, causing injuries from which
the blood flowed. These injuries were shown to
to axe part in the festivities of the occasion
The next morning appellant attempted to leave
and return to her father, but appellee pursued
her with pistol snd carried her forcibly into
the house. About o'c ock that evening. how
ever, she eluded the Wig ance OF her lord and
escaped TO her fathers. She told her mother of
the injuries on her hands, and al so that at the
time OF their infection as aforesaid, appellant
struck her on the arm with said pistol with
great force, and that he also took appellant be-
hind the house and putting his knife to her
throat threatened to kill her If she did not dis
close the whereabouts OF his istol. Appellant
also at one time used wicked language toward
her and started to abandon her, but upon her
earnest entreaty returned. The court below
fused divorce on the evidence adducsd. Held:
A careful consideration of the evidence does not
convince US that it is our duty to override the
conclusions OF the judge who had the advantage
of being confronted with the witnesses. At
frmed. Henry, j.
W c. PIERCE VS.. wimberly e. Philips, from
Smith; tresspass to try title. /. The abstract of
the recorded judgment showed the names of the
r. Bernheim and Felix L. Bauer. Deiendants'
names were given rs George Yarbrou Oh and W.
c. Pierce. he index showed the plaintiffs
names as August. Bernheim AMI Bauer, and the
defendants as YarJrolgh and Pierce. Held:
The court erred in admitting in evidence the
index to the abstract of the Judgment; same
parties composing both firms. 2. Evidence of
the declarations OF Pierce to witness, ASKING
him to correspond with the then owlers of the
land, telling he (Pierce) wished to buy it, was
properly excluded, it not bein, shown that he
was connects with the subsequent purchase.
Reversed and remanded; Henry, J.
Robert Ward VS.. w. b. Worsham; from Clay.
Trespass to try title. /. Where party settled
on l6O acres school land in 1877. and made re-
pea ed offers 20 the county owning the land to
purchase same, which offers were refused aud
the county subsequently sold to third party.
Held: On suit by said third party to recover
from the settler it is suici mt for the latter in
his pleading to Offer to pay for the land, without
making an actual tender, and If he prevails the
Judgment should be that he hold the lani upon
payment OF the purchase money within rea--
sonable time to be fixed by the court. Reversed
ana remanded. Gaines, j.
Gullett Gin Company vs.. Oliver & Griggs;
from Dallas. TrespAss to try title. |. A re-
CO Odd abstract of a judgment should show the
ind lvidua and not firm name Of parties plaintiff
and defendant. Such an abstract would not
even create a lien on partnership proper y, be-
cause lien can only be created by a compliance
with the statute. No error Aft med. GaiLes, J.
T. j. Goree ct al. vs.. W Neal Rlmsy et al.
from Cherokee. William Neal Rsmey was as
sistant superintendent OF the state peniten;iiry
at Rusk The penitentiary board made an order
requiring him to give bond, conditional, among
other things, that he would faithfully disc barge
his official duties and correctly account for a |
moneys entrusted to his care from whatever
source. Ramey made default in the sum of
about 81 90, same being money entruse to his
care ami keeping by The convicts. Suit was
brought ON the bond against Ramey and his
srrities. The court below sus aimed excep-
finr, RI nj on he md
the penitcntiary board had no authority to re-
quire and exact said bond; and that the leg sle-
fure had no power to confer upon said board
such authority. The contention of appelees Is
that the office of assistant superintendent being
wi, the advice and consent of the senate, and
other act or requirement except the
oath of office to exercise the Office OF assist
ant superintendent at the time Ramey was ap-
pointed; that an office is vested right.
and neither the governor or legis.a.
,ufe has any right to impair ii,
and that there vas statute requiring q bond,
and that same was not in compliance with the /
common law in this, that its executi IN must be |
being voluntary. Held: he legislature had |
authority to require the bond, and the fact that |
Ramey was not then in office nor appointed |
until the legislature had passed the act author |
izing the penitentiary board to require bond |
Of the assistant superintendent, has any appli |
cation in this case. The board Is authorised By |
statute 10 require q bond, ard same was nos |
made in disregard Of said board. Reversed and |
remanded. Henry, j.
Fort Worth and Denver City Railway vs. NJ. 1
A. Wilson, from Tarrant- In this cause the sub /
mission of the case heretofore had been the first
assignment, Is set aside, and on agreement of /
will be passed until the call of the sec |
,nd assignment stayton. G. ].