The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-02-26


10 designation of official capacity.
1t might be inferred that j. P. was an
,bbreviation of the term Jus tice OF
he peace" hut in criminal Cases such
ferences can not he INDUCED in. 3.
70 hold the complaint valid we must
supply the defects by an inference
rased upon proven forgery. If Greer
was justice OF the peace he should have
,!gued The complaint officially showing
in which precinct he acted MS such
officer. 4. The complaint has no
Irat and will not support an informa-
ZION. (2) app. 529; 9 App, 434; 4
App, 1889 Reversed and dismissed.
Davidson, j.
International and Great Northern
railway ct al. VI. Geo. G. Hardy, from
Harris. l. The division road master
acted within the appaI ent scope of his
authority in contracting with appellee
that the latter should board two
gangs" of section hands for the rail-
way company q App. G. G. 21D. 2.
| he gen raj r 'admaster ratified the
contract OF the division roadmasler
with appellee, and the company is
liable for any damages incurred for
it's breach. 3. While the contract was
made PRIOR to the appointment Of
Bonner and Eddy as receivers, still il
was in the interest of the cumpauy's
road, and appellee continued to carry
out his part of the contract after their
appointment, and the former are liza
Ule in their representative capacity
Affirm eo, per curiam.
Half d Newbouer Bros. vs.. James
LlOuord, ct al, from Harris. 1. Mrs
Llouord's voluntary appearance din
not waive her to The plea of personal
privilege to the jurisdiction of the
court. 2. The court did not err il
postponiug action upon the plea T."
The jurisdiction until the entire evl-
dence rs to the plea, and on the merit,
had been heard. 3. The evidence i,
conflicting as to the promise to pay in
Houston, and also as to appel 'nL's al
legation OF fraud. This being the
ase, there being evidence to sustain
he judgment, we can not disturb til,
finding of the court below. Affirmed,
per curiam.
James A. Baker, Jr. VS.. A. II. Hitch
Ter, rom H,riis. l. rhe bills of ex-
. ptions and statement of facts can
nOt be considered, because in the first
place they were reserved to excluded
evidence, and in the second place,
wen il they could be reserved in that
the statement of facts during |
ERIN time and within the ten days 0. |
he trial. 2 Before the second COL
ateral matureA, and before this suit
vas brought, appellant was fully mott
led Of the claim OF appellee, to the
or what migt be due upon
/, but pali the sum To Gray, taking
trays Indemnity to secure himself
Baker, IN the payment. 3. The
:, cord tails to show that Gray's right
VAS established GU his interventiou,
md appellee having established his
light, the judgment was properly
;uriam.
Charley Lazzro vs. The State, from
Harris. Conviction for keeping dis
,rderly house. l. When court adj
ourned for dinner counsel agreed that
the jury might return II sealed yer
lict and all parties were notified by |
he court to be ON hand at 3 O'Clock.
Tie jury soon after adjournment re-
.urued sealed verdict and separated |
| he court reassembled at 3 o'clock, |
The verdict was opened and rean
as follows: ave, the jury, find
defendant guilty as charged |
,y the judge" The judge then direct
ID the jury to again retire, IS they
nad not affixed TIE fine. This they
lid and returned this verdict: eve /
he jury find defendant guilty as
'harged by the judge and assess the
punishment at d fine Of 5000" The
court again directed the jury to retire,
telling them if they believed defend
ant guilty to strike out the words "by
,he judge" rom their verdict, which
hey did after retiring for the third
lime. Held: Counsel having agreed
20 n sealed verdict and the jury not
having been discharged by the court,
appellant cannot be heard to COM
slain rhe case differs from 81 App.
1910, inasmuch as the jury III this Ca
laL not been discharged and separated
rs in that case. Affirmed. Per
;uritm,
Lee Payne VS.. The State, from
Jackson; disturbing the peace. l. A
statement OF facts not filed within
ten days after adjournment of court
cannot be considered (25 App. 129)
Nor can assignments of error based
thereon be considered Affirmed. Per
curiam.
&, C. & S. F. Ry. VS.. Alex Clark,
rom Fl Bend. l. Charge complained
Of III first assignment of error was
correct (67 Tex. 49SI.) 9. The
charge complained OF in the third as
segment is directly in the interest OF
hence there is no ground
Tor complaint. Affirmed. Per Gu
RAM.
70