Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-01

| TO the Singer company, and sWors that
on q fair settlement he owed the COM
| pany nothing. The matters involved in
| this prosecution, it occurs to Us, should
be settled in "a civil proceeding. Reversed
! and remanded. Wilson, j.
| Gus Jauks ct al. vs.. the State: from
! Harrison. l. II was not necessary that
the indictment should sllege partner
| ship between defendants or that either of
them owned OF controlled said saloon.
! 2. This being a conviction for keeping
| open q bar room on election day, it was
| not necessary that the Indictment should
| allege that the election was "a special
( election ~ nor that it had been ordered
| by the city council. 8. Uuder the pres
ent law the indictment need not sllege
that the offeuse was committed. and the
election held in the ward of appellants
residence. Act March %, 1887. 4.
! The saloon opened at o'clock Q. m,
and the word day as useo in art.
! lis p. C. includes the time elapsus
/ from one midnight TO another succeeding
aud it is not to be understood as deuotns
only the hours the polls are open. Is
App. 30-l92. s. In prosecutions for
/ violation of election laws il is iUmaterial
/ whether the election was legal or Illegal
/ if the same was held under the forms Of
Z IA" U. AN IlO'S nAo opOhs ". hCApo
/ open his proprietor's saloon on election
day is equally. with his principal amen
! able for a violation OF the law. L
| acting together, they are equally guilty.
! Affirmed. White, p. ].
Eddy s. Cross VS.. Will Elliott; from
! Hopkins. /. Appellee did not procure a
! ticket, although he knew the rate when
! he paid on the train was four cents per
! mile. ana the ticket office was open
thirty minutes before train time. APP
! pellee aud one Mathews boarded the
train, and when the conductor came
around, appellant handed him 81 to pay
both fares. The conductor asked for
| 81 90 when the fare was only 81 10, but
appellee did not call his attention to the
mistake. Appellant boarded the train
! for the next station thirteen miles dis
tant. The conductor told them they
would have to pay or get off, and ap-
pellee and his com oanion said they would
get off. They were left one-half mile
from where they got on train in level
| place near public road, aud left the
train voluntarily at the conductor re-
quest. Held: Appellee has no cause of
action against appellants. Reversed
and remanded. White, 2. j.
Eddy & Cross vs.. A. s. Matthews;
from Hopkins. /. This is q companion
case to the Elliott case above. For same
reasons reversed and remanded.
White, P. j.
+. NJ. TillmaD VS.. Gus Janks; from
Harrison. /. \ sale of chattels is COM
plete whenever it is the intention of the
parties that the title to them shall pass
from the vendor to the vendee and or
dinarily the thing which is the subject of
the contract becomes the property of
the buyer the moment the contract is
concluded, and without regard to the
fact whether the goods were delivered to
the buyer or remain in the possession of
the vendor. 81 Tex. 532-7l Tex. COY
| II Tex. 32l 2. One Irvine was in
debted to both appellee and appellant.
He was in failing condition, financially
speaking, and both of them knew of
that fact. Appellant went to Irvine and
purchased three barrels of whisky
Irvine asked him not TO move it because
he had n chance to sell his whole stock
and ii appellant was seen removing the
whisky from the saloon it might prevent
him (Irvine) from making sale. To
this appellant consented. Irvine then
sold to appellee his stock, including the
three barrels sold to appellant with
out saying anything about the
latter transaction. Held: Appel
liant having knowledge OF Irvine's
intention to defraud appellee the rule
above laid down would not apply, and
appellant is estopped from claiming the
property. Affirmed. White, P. j.
Albert Ryrnes vs.. Texas Express Co. ,
eft al, from Hopkins. Motion to file
transcript and briefs. /. Appellant
shows that the transcript herein was
placed in the hands of counsel for ap-
pellees, who desired 10 trief same. SUBJ
sequently and before the transcript came
again into the hands of the counsel for ap-
pellant 1T was misplaced and could not be
found in time to send to its proper assign
ment, and this through no negligence of
counsel for appellant. Held: Motion
granted. Per curiam.
Texas aud Pacific railway vs.. Annie
Thomas, from Tarrant. l. Same facts
in this case as in Texas and Pacific
railway vs.. Farnsworth, above re-
ported. For same reasons Judgment
will not be disturbed. Affirmed. Per
curtain.
Texas and Pacific vs.. A. 3. Pratt,
from Kaufman. /. An objectionable
charge was cured by special given. 2.
Measure of damages correctly charged,
(5S Tex. 456.) 5. Evidence conflicting but
sufficient. Affirmed. Per curtain.
james Begley ct al, vs.. Sam Swan
son, from Kaufman. l.. Plaintiffs in
error perfected their appeal October Is,
twenty days before third assignment was
taken up, and the transcript should have
been filed on or before November 8.
Or. s., Arts. 1O3t-5.) Affirmed on GER
tifcate. Per curtain.
James A. Barrister vs.. J. T. Sullivan,
from Navarro. Motion to dismiss. /.
In accordance with an agreement of
counsel on either side. the motion will
be overruled. Overruled. Per Curtain.
Texas Pacific railway VS.. D. b. Fairness
worth, from Tarrant. /. The petition
shows a good cause of action and the
general demurrer was properly over |
ruled. 2. No material error of the !
court IN ruling on the evidence. 8. Evil
dence sufficient and does not show con-
tributory negligence. f. Verdict not |
excessive. &c Tex. 6S0.) Affirmed. Per |
Curtain.
p. w. Woodson VS.. Texas Trunk rail- |
way, from kaufman. !. Bill OF excep- |
tons does not show appellant was proba- |
bly, injured for lack of testimony of the |
witnesses. A bill of exceptions must |