Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-10-30

L.
Plaintiff introduced in evidence items
| amounting TO Sl32 60, which Is not shown
10y the pleadings unless this is included
in the general term ''merrhandise' In
the petition. Held: There was no allie
CATION to support evidence of thess items
and accounts. IL appellee will remit
Sl32 .65, the amount not authorized by
the pleadiugs. the case will be affirmed,
otherwise it will be reversed and re-
manded. Henry, j.
Gulf. Colorado and Santa Fe
Railway VS.. Albert Narfeet;
from Tarrant. /. The court did
not err in refusing 10 appoint two or
moe physicians to examine appellants
injuries, il not appearing that he refused
TO be examined and his leg being subse-
quentiy examined by two physicians IN
the presence of the jury. 2. When wit
nesses have qualified themselves to
testify as experts this court would not
feel authorized, from an inspection of
their evidence on the merits of the case,
TO hold that they we're not qualified TO
act as experts. 8. There being no plead
ipgs on that issue and no charge asked
covering the question of the failure OF
appellee TO secure proper medical at
tentiou, had the Issue been raised by the
pleadings and special charge asked
and refused upon said issue it would be
difficult for the court to hold that there
was evidence making ii proper for the
court 10 submit such an issue. 4. YER
diet for $1,000 not excessive. Affirmed.
Stayton, G. j.
c. B. Reynolds VS.. Tarrant County;
from Tarrant. l. A county is not re-
spousible or liable for the Office rent of
justice of the peace, nor is il under any
obligations to furnish him office furni-
ture. II the justice in Fort Worth be al
lowed an office, then every justice, con-
stable and notary public IN the cuunty
would be entitled to the same. Affirmed.
Gaines, j.
Western Union Telegraph Company vs.
W. B. Brooks ct al; from Tarrant.
Suit 10 recover dnmagee 10y reason of
non-delivery of message. /. Where
judgment recites that both parties ap-
peared 10y counsel d announced ready
tor trial, etc. in the absence of posi-
tive showing to the contrary, this court
will presume that parties were repre-
scented by counsel on the trial of the
cause. No error. Affirmed. Gaines. j.
w. w. Thompson vs.. Oscar Anderson,
from Delta. Motion to file transcript;
!. This case was properly returnable to
the last Tyler term of this court, and
there being no sufficient ground shown
why same was not filed. the motion Will
be overruled. Stayton, G.. ].
E E. and W. II. Crawford VS.. A W.
Daggett; from Shelby. l. This is q mo-
ton to fl additional briefs, and the
motion will be sustained. Stayton, c. j
G. w. Grain VS.. c. P. Huntington;
from Shelby. This is motion TO set
aside the submission heretofore had i'll
this case and file briefs. The motion will
be granted. Stayton, c. J.
Nathan Gregg s Son VS.. W. D. Cleve-
land & CO.; from Shelby. This is
motion to set aside the submission of this
case had on former day of the term.
The grounds of the motion are tpnaEle
and will be granted. Stayton. CT.
Sam Thurman VS.. Blankenship- Blake
company: from Marion. On q former day
OF the term the clerk who made up the
transcript was cited TO show this cour.
why he should not be punished for con-
tempt for inserting certain documents in
the transcript i'll violation of the rules of
this court. 1t is no excuse that the clerk
did not know the rules, or did not have a
copy OF the same, or that counsel on both
sides instructed him to do SO. Counsel
having told him TO insert documents, and
he knowing no better, the act was not
willful. Fined 81 aud costs. Stayton,
T.. j