The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-05-22

other States is as thorough test as
required by our law, is question that
the legislature and not the courts
must pass upon, and the legislature
having been willing to run the risk in
that respect, the courts must follow
the law making power. The appli-
cant is discharged.
Opinion by Hurt, J.
H. A. ALLEN, ADMINISTRATORS, VS..
WILEY CURRY, from Hill county.
Opinion by Wilson, j.
Suit by appellee against appellant
to establish claim of $720 against the
estate of Oustott. deceased. The pc
tition contains two counts, one of ex-
press contract and the other a count
for services rendered which were
reasonably worth the amount claimed.
Appellee and Oustott had been part
ners and a settlement had been made
between the estate and appellee, not
including, however, the claim of this
suit, although arising out of the part
nership. Held: The evidence was
too vague and. indefinite to sustain
the count of express contract, and as
to the second count the law is against
appellee, as in the absence of special
agreement one partner is not entitled
to compensation for services rendered
by him in and about the partnership
| business.
Reversed and remanded.
ANDERSON SEARCY VS.. THE STATE,
from Brazos county. Opinion by
White, P.J.
Defendant made confession of his
guilt when in Jail to the sheriff ,.who told
him first, that whatever he said would
be used against him, defendant, but if
he would tell him all about it, so that
he could get all the parties, he would
do what he could for him in his case"
The question is as to the admissible
ity of the confessif. n made after the
use of this language by the sheriff.
Held "a confession is not admissi-
BILE unless voluntarily and freely made
uninhuenced by persuasion or compul-
sion, not induced by any promise Gre
ating hope of benefit, or any threats
creating fear OF punishment" In the
words of the sheriff, that he would do
what he could for him in his case, was
not only promise but persuasion,
and positive one by an officer high
in authority and one in every way
calculated to make the delendent be-
lieve his condition would be bettered
by making the confession.
The confession was inadmissible
and the case is reversed and re-
manded.
J. V. Doss VS.. THE STATE, from Ellis
county. Opinion by Wilson, J.
After mature consideration it was
neld that an objection to the qualifca-
ton of a grand Juror can only be
made by challenge (377, G. G. P.) and
not by motion to set aside indictment,
as was attempted in this case. The
possession of the cotton was in the
owner, King, after removal from the
gin by him. The conversation of de-
fendent with Shelton to which defend
ant proposed to testify should have
been admitted as part of the res geste
showing how defendant got into pos
session OF the cotton. Special charge
No. 2 should have been given, as also
No. 3, relative to the identity OF the
cotton.
Reversed and remanded.
B. F. WORKMAN EFT AL. VS.. CAMERON,
CASTLES & STOREY, from McLennan.
Opinion by Wilson, J.
Suit on two promissory notes for
1915 each against principals and sure
ties on same. Defendants pleaded:
That the notes were executed for
past but valid Indebtedness, but in
consideration also of the promise by
plaintiffs to supply the principals with
goods to further carry on their bust
ness as grocery merchants. The surety
also alleged that he was induced by
the latter consideration to sign the
notes. The plaintiffs, however, failed
to comply with said stipulation, hence
defendants claimed not to be liable.
The demurrer to this answer was sus-
tanned. Held: The answer did not
set up valid defense, as the failure to
deliver the goods only constituted
breach of contract, for which plaintiffs
might have been liable in damages.
The consideration for the notes was
the existing Indebtedness, and no such
fraud was shown as would invalidate
the notes given therefor.
The Judgment is affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT.
The argum ent in the case of Hum
VS.. McClintock, Judge Key presiding,
was begun about A 80 Yesterday.
COMMISSIONERS COURT.
The commissioners were engaged
yesterday in auditing the quarterly re-
ports of the various county officers.
RECORDERS COURT.
City VS.. Mike O'Brien, intoxication
fined S. and costs.
City vs.. John Webster, intoxication
fined S5 and costs.
City vs.. James Wright, disturbing
the peace by fighting; set for this
morning at 9 o'clock.
JUSTICE STUART'S