Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-11

| OF Limitations would not run against the
child. 8. The child would not be pre-
Guided by suit brought by Its mother.
aud another child against the company
| for their benefit alone. Reversed and
remauded. Hobby. J.
| Nathan Patton vs.. A. II. Belo & Co.;
| from McLenuan. Suit by appellant to
recover for the alleged circulation Of
| libelous matter concerning the former.
| l. II seems TO be admitted that the prin-
ciple is now generally recognized that
the publication OF the truth is q complete
defense to suits for libel. II the proof
of the charge is established by proof. the
| plaintiff would not be entitled to recover,
| because he cannot be said to be damagei
| Ly the loss Of, or injury to a character
he did not possess. Such is the prn-
cipal reason given why it is de-
Tense complete in itself. 9. The court
did not err in excluding the testimony OF
q witness as to the large circulation OF
the Galveston News, and OF its influence
as q moulder of public opinion. 3. Tes-
timony showing the motive and intent of
appe lees not to be malicious was prop
erly admitted. 4. The jury have passed
upon the questions of fact nd we will
not revise their finding. Affirmed.
Hobby, j.
Amelia s. Howard ct al. VS.. Jacob
Stubbletield; from Runnells. l. There
being no controversy with reference to
the facts. the court did not err in charg-
ing the jury that appellants claim to thu
land was stale demand. Under the
proven facts, it was the duty of the
court to so charge, and il was not ques-
tion for the jury. No error. Affirmed.
Acker, P. j.
II
Bexar. /. In suit on an account, the
burden proving THAT same has been
paid. is upon the party owing same. The
debtor must show by preponderance Of
the evidence that the debt has been liqui-
dated. In the face of the fact tina: the
creditor swears that he never received
the amount of the debt, evidence that a
draft or order was cent him Is not suffi-
Gent TO show payment in the absence of
receipt or acknowledgment by the
creditor that ne received same. Reversed
and remanded. Collard, J.
". e. Mcdonald ct al. vs.. W. p.
Hamblin; from Hill. /. Where joint
| authority is given by will TO two or
more persons as executors TO sell aud
convey real estate, and one OF the execu-
| tors refuses to act, or cannot act, u con-
veyancs made by those surviving under the
authority of the will is valid. This rule
applies 10 the independent executors I'M
| der will. 2. Appellants not being
either heirs or creditors can not avail
them selves Of the fact that the consider
alton for the execution Of the conveyance
was barred by the statute of limitations.
| 3. a tax collectors deed sh olild accur-
| ately and specifically describe the land 1t
purports to convey; otherwise it is
tnp on ,ics f,la in al
Hobby, j.
sam Evans VS.. Mary C. Foster ct al:
from Tarrant. Trespass TO try title. /.
Appellant claiming under NJ. j. Brinson
as common source, and Brinson having
acquired title through the transfer Of
the certificate by Rachel Mulliken
to Leonard, the appellant: could not
question the validity of that OF any other
link in the chain of title between the
sovereignty of the soil and the admitted
common source. 81 Tex, 279; rs Tex,
5D7. 2. The court did not err in using
IN his charge the word ''possessiou in
stead of occupied, the words being
synonymous and are understood TO mean
the same thing. 8. Appellant could not
recover urder the plea Of limitations be-
yond the land actually occupied by him.
There was no error in refusing special in
structions offered by appellant. AZ
firmed. Acker P. j.
Gulf, Colorado ana Santa Fe Railway
VS.. w. II. Gate wood; from Johnson
Suit By appellee to recover damages for
delay in transportation. loss in weight Of
cattle, extra expense etc. and for over
charge in freight. l. The Limitation of
forty days in the shipping contract,
within which suit must be brought for
any damage occurring during transporta-
ton, was reasonable and binding. 6S
Tex. 3l4. Suit must be brought within
forty days after the occurrence of the
injury unless some reasonable excuse for
the delay lie shown. Appellee was duly
notified that the company would not pay
damages, and no excuse for delay is
shown. .. The evidence shows con-
clusively that the delay was occasioned
by no other cause than Wis major,
strike and mob violence OF such magni-
tude as required the military forces Of
the government to overcome, and which
Was not suppressed without blooishsd.
Appellant can not be held responsible for
delay ocrasIoned by means SO far beyond
his control. The evidence shows all dill
e-nre in efforts 10 forward ths cattle.
Reversed and remanded. Acker, P. J.