Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-18
TIE HIGHER COUNTS.
synopses of Decisions Rendered at the Prespu.
Austin Sitting.

Austin sitting.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX, May LEX parts G. W. Ro5.
nson. This was an application fo- ha5ssi
corpus by Robinson, who was arrested on
complaint charging him with selling a barrel O.
oil for Illuminating purposes without having tS1
same inspected and branded by the officer O.
Texas, as required by law of 1889. 1t appears,
however, that said oil had been inspected in
Louisiana under a law similar to the TeIli
inspection law. Applicant contends that the
oil was not subject to inspection in Texas
on the strength OF the proTlsl
of the third section of the Texas law, which
reads: provided, it shall not be Necessary 10
inspect one which has been inspected under
law of another state On the other hand It -
claimed by the SKATE that this clause IS VOID, b:
cause pnintelligible and meaningless. HE'D:
The intention of the legislature must oe en-
forced, If it can be arrived at, and this intention
is absolutely certain, though the above e.als3
t-dOes contain the word cone instead Of "ol''
Foil officially inspected in another stote this
shown by the whole act and the eoa-
text OF said clause renders TINS e-
tain, for even if the word "one. a
left out entirely the subject matter OF the a.i
would force ''oil, to occupy its pace Us
object of the law is to inspect oil, Tor the Plf'
poes of protecting the people from danger "a "a
this PrsGaqtoH iOE f under 5
law Of another state for that required IN 'l'
state. The proviso says 1t snail ho' % nV' =,
sary to inspect what? Tine suoleCt Lu4 I-,,,
the act being the inspection OF on. tno III
That required by the act 10 be ~
spected in this state. II md
be the essence OF foolishness The provis5Go e.
erupts from inspection oils used ioE AI s.
mating purposes, il inspected IN 1nO.t ne .s, r..
and no other oils, because no otheT Ol' a., i,
h. nd
no necessity for the proylso- "nstLt' ~, "a
spection ia other states is aStaoFous.. a. isr.
required by our law is question tLA. 80 nj
islature and not the courts mus pusS 49,, ~
the legislature having been VIKING ~ i ~. ~
risk in that respect the courts fHss .0 IL AZ.
law making power. The aPphGan'
charged. Opinion by Hurt, j. W.T. c,,-z.
H. B. Allen, administrator, vs.; MLeJ s1t
from Hill county. Opinion by WlllsOI; % .i,Ir
by appellee against appellant 70 es..ot Issc.,ssi
OF 500 against the estate OF Ousto''' oHs N q.
The petition contains two counts, oNs-i-,,
press contract and the other couns lol .s tbs
rendered, which were REASONABLY VT bsd
amount claimed. Appellee anu Jus H', r,sis
been partners, and settle ment hAd GSci,5iug
between the estate and appellee not my my a.
however, the claim OF tnls stns2Ish!D
though arising out OF the pa inn5sfni.s
Held, the evidence was TOO VasuS sact and q
to sustain the couns of express conslSU' ,,nDees
to the second count the law is agalnss one
as in the absence of special glia lar SER.
partner il not entitled to compensate Nartnsr
dnd
shin bnsiness Reversed and remahus'pu ,,ro1
Anderson Learcy VS.. the StAtei iT nIn.gsndIa.
county. Opinion by White, r; D. IN isil 10 the
made confession of his gun be ihi
sheriff, who told him first thai liant BAL
would be used against MIN, it 20 Tia. b
II he would tell him all aoous a., a. whs, b
could get all the parties, ne NO. MEN Srestion i,
could for him in his case. Ing ~. made atG
to the admissibility OF the coniesslSn ne He'd:
the use OF this language by tne;tIa unlsss vol.
"a confession is not adInlsslNtt. sreused y
unfairly and freely mace not induced n
any promise creating hOPs ,rnishnsnt
or any threats creating fear OF ~ would %
In the words Of the sherin lh M. was not o.!
what he could for him in his case ,1sitiys ess
a promise, but Q persuasive ana : ~ In eTsg
by an officer high in authority an bshsis
way calculated to make the oet e r-akiBg "
his condition would be better UJ,n,i,sibe IA
c cor The confession is inadhli'
the case is reversed and ren1anueuiI ,lis co1nT'
J. " Doss vs.. the state; from 80 consasT
Opinion by Wilson, !. Atsi iaction 70 the 9sLL,
alton It Is now held that an obleeto he made q
ihcation Of grand juror can olyb nv motion, Y,
chailsngee I5fT @. O. P. and not Us55,ed in ~
set aside Indictment, - was AlttinF Vas u =
o,sTs. 49, atfer removal from tnsg,s sss
him. THE CONVERSATION Of defehoal IN tes1l
ton ta>uhich defendant propo,e Of the y
shouidhaye been Adn,ttea t - got intSS
sassion of-the cotton. .SpeclA reliA
should haas been given. as also H'SU-,ed snd "
TO the identity Of the COTTON -
manded. 1,.u,s-ou, C1snH n
BIZ. WORKMAN ct al. vs. Csme'On6 pinos y
W SgEle JON Suit on two promissGry.
ss75 each, against principals T ana The ss.5.
| same. Defendants pleaded: I Ia,id iniseLs
| were executed for past pus ~ the Pro1.,,sa +
ness. but in consideration also oil. 2! giA -
by plaintiffs to supply the ihnnlIness ., ~
| Gerry merchants. The surely az. a eousidsrs-st &
| he was induced by the latter bOgs.S
to sign the notes. The plant, alton. ~
failed to comply with said si ,.P9SIs. Tss q
| defendants claimed not to be Hi a5 Held ~
murrer 70 this answer was su aI;d defsDse, .
| failure. to deliver the goods only .S1tifs ~,
breach Of contract, for which A..ousidsf'..j
| have been liable In DAMAGES. :Jsbtednss;iS,G
lsso such fraud was shown as wos5i1T,peut
\ senotice given therefor. Tne Jus
dr3117l