Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-22

| in the light OF the able oral arguments
and briefs submitted by both parties. we
| have reached the conclusion that the
| proof is not evident that tho applicant
has committed a capital crime, and that
therefore he is entitled to bail. We will
not discuss the facts or state our rea-
sons III detail for holding him entitled to
bail. IL Ia unnecessary, and further
more it would be improper for US to do
SO. The judgment denying bail is set
aside, and relatUr will be released on the
execution of bond in the sum of $1,000.
Wilson, j.
Walter Sims VS.. the State; from Dali
las. Motion to abate appeal. l. 1t being
properly shown to the court that proceed
ing this appeal appellant has departed
this life, the motion will be sustained.
Motion granted and appeal abated. Per
curiam.
N. b. Birge & Co. VS.. W. J. Mayo;
from Hunt. l. There is no law of mar
ket over which protects one AS an inuo-
cent purchaser in Texas. II app. o. @.
Sec. 27I. 2. The statutes themselves
are notice of the landlords lien. 81
Tex. 4l9-R. S. 3l07-61 Tex. 50. AZ
firmed. Per curtain.
Terry s. EasleY VS.. Eddy and Cross,
receivers; from Rains. l. No state
ment of facts, no bill of exceptions, and
no question presented for determination
tina, can be considered. Affirmed. Per
curtain.
Charles Roby vs.. the state; from
Coryell. Conviction for cutting fence.
/. The evidence supports the verdict.
2. The newly discovered evidence Is
merely to impeach witness. and be-
;I,, 80
dant by cross-exa,nination of the wit
ness (Willie Jones) to show the uncer-
tainty of his testimony as to DEFENDANT
identity. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Bill Bamberg vs.. the State: from
Coryell county. l. This is com panion
case to Roby vs.. State above, and for
same reasons the judgment will not be
disturbed. Affirmed. Per DURHAM.
Jim Camp VS.. the State; from Jones.
Motion for rehearing. l. Having con-
sidered the motion. we still think the
judgment of affirmsnce rendered on q
former day of the term is correct. Mo-
ton refused. Per DURHAM.
LOUIS A. Petit VS.. the State; from
Fannln. Motion for rehearing. l.
There is no merit in the motion. The
questions raised have been fully con-
sidered, and We adhere to our opinion
that there is no error in the conviction.
Motion overruled. Per curtain.
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway
vs.. Mike DevIne; from Tarrant. 1. Ap-
pellee and his wife were not trespassers
on the train, aud if 1t was not the duty
of the company to take them back to the
station 1t was at least its duty to leave
them where their health would not be
jeopsrdized. They could not be elected
either in the manner and time of expul-s.
sion IN disregard OF life aud limb. r.
App. c. &. 1854; So Tex. l72; "a Tex.
$40; II Tex. 36l; 20 Am. and Eng. Ry.
Cases, 1873. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Gulf, Colorado aud Santa Fee Railway
Us. u. G. Nelson 4 Co.; from Tarrsnt.
l. The partnership was not denied under
oath. 2. The through bill of ladIng sui.
fciently established the partnership in
the state Of the p,eadings. "a Tex. g.
8 The charge of the court was the law
Of the case as made By the pleadings and
proof. Affirmed. Per curtain.
SUPREME COURT.
Estate j. N. Llndley vs. W. r. Hen
derson; from Navarro. Motion to dis
misc appeal. l.. The appeal bond was
made out and q blank left for the
amount to be inserted by the clerk when
he ascertained the proper amount. This
the clerk failed to do until the time for