Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-14


sufficient and there is no material error
in the charge. 3. No reversible error.
Affirmed. Per curiam.
| d. II. and j. ". Snyder VS.. Cora
| Carpenter ct al; from Navarro. /.
| The statute of limitations had not run or
| commenced TO run against the claim. ..
| There was no error on the trial in the
court below. Affirmed. Per curtain.
| J. =. Pierson vs.. NJ. X. Laroe; from
| kaufman. 1. Execution OF letter not
| proved and it was not error TO reject it.
| 2. We will not reverse where there is
| only conflict in the evidence. 3. No
error disclosed for which judgment
should be set aside. Affirmed. Per
curiam.
d. NJ. Osborne II Co. VS.. Towson s.
Ledbetter; from kaufman. l. The plea
Of privilege was defective in not stating
defendants residence specifically. ..
The warranty on back of the order was
a part of the contract and binding on
appellant. 3. Bills of exception to ed-
mission of testimony show no error.
Affirmed. Per curtain.
j. c. Whitesell & Co. We. Jack Gar
rett; from Bowie. /. Fagin purchased
without notice and for a valuable con-
sideration, and therefore took good
title to the property. =. There ls no
error in any ruling complained of. Al
firmed. Per curtain.
r. H. Holder VS.. w. p. White eft al.
from Bowie. l. We have repeatedly
held that this court will not undertake to
consider conflict in the evidence,
where same supports the judgment. ..
We fail to see any error for which the
judgment should be reversed. Affirmed.
Per curIam.
w. II Fox VS.. the State; from Hop
kins. Carrying q pistol. /. The evil
dence sustans the judgment of convic-
ton. ,. There is no reversible error
apparent of record. Affirmed. Per
curlam.
st. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Rail-
way vs.. S. o. Berry: from Tarrant.
Appellee purchased tickets for himself,
wife and two children from Wolfe City
to Fort Worth, q distance Of about 100
miles, Appellant transported him part
of the way, and failed to complete the
contract of transportation. Appellee
was forced to purchase tickets over an
other road and after several days delay
he arrived in Fort Worth. Appellee s
baggage, which was checked by appel
liant, was also delayed several days. HIS
extra expenses thus caused were about
$50. He recovered $500 damages for
breach OF contract and mental suffering
of himself and family. !. We think this
& case in which damages for mental suf-
ferng eau be allowed. [G6 Texas. $50.
= We cannot say the verdict is excess
i've There is no rule by which to meas
ure injury to feelings, aud unless the
amount allowed by O. jury he SO grossly
excessive as TO justify the conclusion that
it is the result of prejudice or other i'm
proper influence, we do not think this
court should set aside the verdict. While
in this case the amount allowed appellee
is certainly liberal, We cannot say il is
excessive. Affirmed. Wilson, J.
First National Bank, TeNarkana, vs..
J. w. Viewer ct al; from Bowie. APP
pellees gave their note for 500 payable
AT Citizens bank, Texarkane. Before
the note fell due the Citizens bank
failed and the note was sent to appellant
for collection, it being the only bank in
Texarkaua hen the note fell due ep-
pellaut presented the same at its own
bank and the note not being paid was
duly protested. At the time of the pro-
test appellees lived in another town
twenty-five miles from Te1arkans, but
the indorser on the note lived in the lat
ter city Appellees brought this suit to
recover damages for an alleged illegal
protest and recovered the sum Of Sl95.
Held: the protest was not wrongful or
Illegal. Appellees have no cause of ae-
ton. Reversed aud dismissed. Will
son. J.
John c. Grifis vs.. the State; from
Bowie. Assault to murder. l. Evil
tence conflicting but sufficient. 2. Evil
dence did not demand charge on az
gravated assault. 8. The affidavit of
the juror was not competent to impeach
his own verdict. No error. Affirmed.
Per curtain.
Texas and Pacific railway VS.. Gains
Bros. ct al; from Bowie. l. The YER
dict and judgment are supported by the
evidence. =. No material error in
charge, and appellant asked us addi-
tonaI instructions. Affirmed. Per GU
Ram.
Ed Muller vs.. the state; from Tarrant.
Selling liquor on Sunday. /. Evidence
aud charge sufficient. 2. No error in
refusing special charges. 5. No error
IN remarks of county attorney. AT.
tirmsd. Per curtain.
Sun Mutual Insurance company vs..
NJ Lew: from -BoHis l. Alterations