Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-24
vs.. J. b. 1itsE e, al. sAsrom rarraut

vs.. j Is LlIsy CT III. y4Tonh iarraut-
Motion for rehearing. h We see no
reason for not adhering to OR opinion OF
O former day of the term affirming this
case. Motion overruled. Per curtain.
Willis higgins vs.. the State; from
Ellis. Burglary. l. Ind.ctme proper
and sufficient, and the evidence sustains
the conviction. ?. Proper predicate not
laid for the introduction of testimony of
the witness Lewis. 3. Charge of the
court correct. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Balance Cnurn Company VS.. j. 5.
Henry; from Rusk. l.. The plea of
privilege was defective. .. The allega-
tion of fraud was not denied by plea, and
said allegation gave the court juris lie
ton over appellant. 8. The charge is
not materially erroneous. No reversible
error shown. Affirmed. Per curiam.
Western Union Telegraph Co. VS.. Chas.
Scheuber s. Co.; from Upshur. Motion
to affirm on certificate. /. The motion,
being in due and legal form. will be
granted. Affirmed on certificate. Per
curtain.
weaber Bros. ct al. vs.. II. W. Will
Hams s. Co.; from Tarrant. Motion TO
affirm on certificate. l. The motion
complying with ali legal requirements
will be granted. Affirmed on certificate.
Per Curtain.
J. 7. s. Fitzgerald vs.. F. NJ. Wo-
mack; from Navarro. l. A suit need
not necessarily be brought on q promis
sorry note, but may be brought for
damages tor breach of contract in not
paying same, in which case the amount
of damages sued for, and not the amount
of the note would control the venue OF
the case. Affirmed. Per Curiam.
Texas and Pacific railway vs.. B. r
Norwood; from Van Zaudt. Suit to re-
cover for grass burned. |. The receiver
was the agent of the railroad company,
and the company was liable fer damages
caused by his negligence while operating
the road said company having received
back the property placed in the hands OF
the receiver. Affirmed. Per Curiam.
w. l.. Williamson ct al. ., vs.. the
State; from Nav arro. Theft. l. Where
the conviction is a joint one, notwith-
standing this fact, the defendants should
enter iuto a separate recognizance. Be-
cause the recognizance is joint one and
therein defective the appeal will be dis
missed. Dismissed. Per Curtain.
l. Jacobs VS.. N. Goldman; from
Smith. l. We will not disturb the
judgment because of conflict in the
testimony. When considered as a
whole. there is no material error i'll the
charge of the jury. Affirmed. Per
Curiam.
Balance Churn Company vs.. II. II.
Davenport ct al; from Rusk. /. A
plea of fraud gave jurisdiction over ap-
pellant, and in addition to this the plea
of privilege was defective. 2. None OF
the assignments of error are maintain
able. Affirmed. Per Curtain.
Burris i Bills VS.. Cert and Raphael;
mi.
and reform the judgment of the court
below was an orig nal one in the nature
of a bill of review. and was n proper
proceeding in such a case. .. The petit
tion shows facts which entitled appeilees
to a certiorari and the court did not err
IN granting the relief prayed for. At
firmed. Per Curiam.
Badeett Brooks ct al. vs.. Bounds
Bros ct al. from Navarro. l. The ap-
peal bond from justice court WAS not i'll
double the am unit of judgment As re-
Quired. II does not appear that 1t was
in double the amount excluding costs ap-
parently illegal. 2. The new appeal
bond was offered too late. II should
have been offered in answer TO the mo-
ton to dismiss. Affirmed. Per Gu
riam.
JIG. Williamson vs.. W. E. Ross,
from Pamela. l. Appellant having told ap.
pellee to buy the notes aud that they were
all right, be was estOpped from denying
that he was liable on the notes, his name
appearing as principal therein. No
reversible error. Affirmed. Per Gu
RAM.
Bob Murrah W. the State; from Mills.
Burglary. l.. The accomplish was cor
RELOCATED and the evidence Is sufficient
to sustain the conviction. 2. The charge
of the court was full and correct. No
error. Affirmed. Per Curtain.
-