Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-10-25
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SynOpses of Decisions Rendered at the Pres
ent Tyler sitting.
CoTrpT OE

ent Tyler sitting.
COURT OF APPEALS.
| Correspondence OF the Gazette
TYLER. Tex, Oct. 2s.-J. V. French VS.. W.
b. Ford, from Tarrant. /. The contrac. was a
several one and there no variance in the
allegation and proof. 2. The parties agreed
that the undivided property should not be par
titioned. and appellee not to be deprived of
his fees by this sub equent agreement He was
neither bound TO wait until the outstanding
titles were settled, nor was he bound to bring
suit for their settlement. Affirmed. Wilson, j..
Western Union Telegraph Company VS.. X. H.
Hutches; from Tarrant. /. The having
originated in Justices court, and no written
peadings being necessary, this court will pre-
su everything in favor of the verdict and
Affirmed. Wilson, j.
B. C. Evans Compan.- VS.. Robertson g.
Ewing; from Tarrant. l. The motion to affirm
on certificate being in due form of law, the
motion viii be granted Affirmed on certificate.
Girls Reynolds vs.. The State; from Wise.
Theft of cattle. /. Evidence and charge sufi-
cient 2. Absent testimony not probably true
Affirmed. Wi lson, j.
Girls Reynolds VS.. state; from Wise. Theft of
cattle. l. This is compro mise case to Rey-
noids vs.. The state above, and for same reason
is affirmed. Wilson. j.
A Devereaux ct al. VS.. w. R. sanner; from
Tarrant. l. The negotiations were brought
about by appellee and he was entitled to his
commissions. 2. The charge was correct and
applicable To the facts. ANlrmed. Wilson, j.
John Wyatt VS. The State; from Robertson.
On motion dismiss. l. The assistant attor-
ney-g general moves TO dismiss the g-ound of
the escape Of appellant. The mo ion comply ing
with necessary requirements Will be granted.
Dismissed. Wilson, j.
Texas and Pacific Ry; vs. A. J. Hamilton;
material error. 2. The evidence supports the
Judgment. Affirmed. Wilson j.
uuif, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway VS.. J. B.
Litsey; from 1arranf. l. The value of the land
at the time OF the trial was the proper measure
OF damage. 2. Verdict not excessive. Affirmed.
Wilson, j.
rant. l. The suit originating in Justices court
there is no merit in the objection to the plead
ing. ?. While tue evidence as to the contract is
conflicting. the evidence sustains ne judgment
and we will not disturb same. Affirmed. Will
John Smith VS.. State; from Robe tson. l.
custody and the motion to dismiss will be sus-
tanned. Dismissed. Wilson, j.
.sGulf, Colorado and Santa Fe railroad vs.. G.
HI Harmon, from Tarrant. !. The evidence is
amply sufficient to warrant the jury in finding
he appellant guilty of negligence. No error in
the judgment. Affirmed. Viii ion.
]. S. Armstrong & Co. VS.. D. H. Slaton, fr ON
Tarrant. l. Exemplary damages were pro p
erly recoverable. .. Remitter was properly
allowed and cured the error in the charge Of the
corrt and in the verdict. Affirmed, Wilson, j.
Texas and Pacific railway VS.. Carroll Smith ct
al. from Red River. l. Where the evidence is
conflicting, but sustains the judgment, this
below. Affirmed, Wilson. j.
Texas and Pacific Railway VS.. Annie H. Speer,
from Tarrant l: It is too late to raise the
when the question has not been raised in the
court below. 2. No error for which the judg-
ment should be disturbed. Affirmed. Wilson,
Texas and Pacific Railway VS.. E. s. Billings.
from Tarrant. l. The amendment complained
judgment is abundantly supported by the evil
dence Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Frank Mat anga VS.. Philip Lodats, from Tar
Sn viii are both
count of remarks of consul. where no injury is
shown, or made to appear probable by reason of
such remarks. Affirmed. Wilson, J.
Jim Bennett VS.. the State, from Robertson.
Motion to dismiss, l. Pending his appeal ap-
pellant has escaped from custody and the mosi
tion will be granted. Dismissed: Wilson, J.
Gulf, Colorado and anita Fe Railway VS. A.
F. Hicks, from rarrant. The evidence sus-
tains the Judgment. 2. The judgment is not eI-
W. NJ. johnson vs. F. Il. and T. L. Dicker-
son, from Red River. ]. The plea of res adjudi-
cata was not sustained, the wife not being
party nor bound by the first suit and she was not
es opped from bringing this suit. IS Tex. 1881.
Affirmed. Wilson, ].
Frank Harrison vs.. the state, from Tarraut.
Violating local option law. l. 1t was not neces-
sary for the indictment to allege that the town
of Arlington was incorporated. 2. 1t was not
necessary that the minutes of the commission
ers' court should be signed by the Judge
[ Tex. 1874. firmed. Wilson, j.
o. I. Lyonvs ]. NJ. Henderson, from Tar
rant. /. This is purely q case of conflict Of
the evidence, and this court has frequently held
that it cannot reverse on that ground. e. The
verdict is net excessive. Affirmed. Wilson. J.
Bonner & Eddy, receivers ETC. VS.. j. q.
Mechanism, from Anderson. Motion to affirm
Oh certificate. /. The motion being in COM
pliance with requirements governing same, the
motion viii be granted. Affirmed. Wilson j
st. Louis, Arkan sas and Texas Railway VS.. s.
o. Berry, from Tarraut. This is a motion BY |
appellant for leave to file briefs, the being
TO the first assignment. Motion 1
granted. Wilson, j.
Sun Mutual insurance company. vs.. NJ. Levy; |
from Bowie This is . motion by appellant, |
diminution of the record. and ask |
ing leave TO substitute lost papers. The appel |
lee agreeing that the record on former appeal |
mag be used in this case, the motion will be |
denied. Wilson, j.
Zraber5ier & Behan VS.. Western Union tele- |
graph company; from Upshur. 1. Under the |
evidence appellants were fully entitled to the |
price OF the message. This amount they have |
No error. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
SUPREME COURT.
Carter Bros. & Co. VS.. w. A. Hightower. |
rem Marion. On motion to dismiss. The |
grounds of the motion to strike out briefs and |
dismiss the appeal herein are untensble. Motion /
efused. Staytou, @ ].