Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-11-22

and John l.. Henry Associate JUSTICES
S. D. Reeves, Clerk.
Texas and Pacific Railway vs.. Hannah
Dunn from Marion. l. There being no bill
of exceptions 10 the overruling of the motion
for continuance by defendant, the matter
cannot be considered an appeal. =. This
suit was instituted by appellee TO recover
damages to her lot in the city of Jefferson.
alleged to have been caused by the negll-
gent construction of drain pipe or cul-
vert. The evidence shows that part OF the
damage was incurred before the conStruc-
ton of the drain pipe. but the petition did
rot pray for q recovery of damages incurred
before the construction OF said drain pipe.
Held: 1t Is evident that the court in rem
dering Judgment considered testimony OF
damage accrulng anterior to the conStruc-
ton of the drain pipe. Under the allega-
tons of the petition this could not be done.
Reversed and remanded. Gaines, j.
7Texas and Pacific Railway vs.. G. \.
James; from CasS. Suit by appellee 10 re
cover for being elected from train. l.
Appellee intended TO get off the train at
Atlanta, but went to sleep and was awal-
ened when the train had left Atlanta and
about two miles out. The conductor put
appellee off the train, the evidence being
conflicting as to whether force was used or
not. The evidence did not show that appel
lee rendered or offered TO pay his fare to the
next station. Held: The court erred in
refusing appellants special charge to the
effect that it was not the duty of the COM
pany to carry the appellee to the next sta
lion unless he paid or offered to pay his
fare to that point, and that unless he paid
or rendered fare the conductor had the
right to put him off, provided the con
ductor had no reason to believe that putting
him off in that particular place would re
suit in injury to appellee. Reversed and
remanded. Gaines, j.
L. r. Graham ct al. VS.. Barnes & Wet
more: from Wood. l. Where appellee files
a written confession Of error, the cause viii
be reversed without written opinion. he
yersed and remandcd. Per curtain.
J. n kimberlin VS.. l.. I. Rouse; from
Franklin l. Appellee had this transcript
made up and sent to this court He asks
for an af1irmance without reference to the
merits. Held: An inspection of the records
shows no notice of appeal by appellee. Dis
missed Per curiam.
Graham & Zuckerman vs.. Barnes & Wet
more: from Wood. |. The appellees file
their written confession of error Under
established rules the cause will be re-
versed and remanded. 1t is SO ordered.
Per curtain.
William Cross vs. l.. F. Smith; from
Smith Motion to dismiss. l. An appeal
bond which misdescribes the Judgment is
fatally defective,san and the appeal can not
stand. Dismissed. Per curiam.
Mary NJ. Farrar ct al. vs.. NJ. J. Farrar;
from Ellis Motion to dismiss. l. One of
the appellants is not named in the appeal
bond, and the same is otherwise defective.
Appeal dismissed. Per curiam.
Martha Storer ct al w. II. Lane; from
Harrison. |. Motion to strike out part OF
brief of appellee. While the brief of ap-
pellee sets up matters not pertaining to APP
pellant's brief, the appellant will be
allowed until the last call of the assignment
to file an answer to appellee's brief Over
ruled. Per curiam
W. E. Duren vs.. A. B. Douglas from
Navarro. l, Appellee has filed his written
confession of error. Under such state of
case the court will reverse. Reversed and
remanded. Per curtain.
Court of Appeals.
Sidney Stephens VS.. the State; from
Smith On motion to dismiss. l. A tran
script which has no seal across the tie Is
defective, and motion to dismiss on that
account is well taken. Appeal dismissed.
Per curtain.
Norman Winters vs.. the State; from
Smith. Motion to dismiss. /. The record
contains final judgment and the motion to
dismiss on that ground cannot be sustained.
Motion overruled. Per curtain.
Alex Sands VS.. the State; from Harrison.
Motion to dismiss. l. Appellant is charged
with fraudulently receiving from one Lige
Brewster property acquired by said Brews-
ter in a manner that the acquisition of the
same constitutes theft, and appellant know
ing same was so acquired, received and con-
cealed same. The recognizance states that
ing stolen property, knowing the same to
have been stolen" Held: The recog pizance
fails to state the offense charged. Appeal
dismissed. Per curtain.