Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-11-21

| ,iv.t ,he loud yaa sbwted This would
iHiH w i'n mn 'lgo 0l curative lUHfiH-
.'hu' ia th1 aqgc sH
,glHa lni'7uu became 'lr.
anu .srsIu. ,hr ryIu ~ rdi, io CIV
culaHtt HI sCiull audi. anla nr4y ..uU .....
a1ne l.3 u gll i} rHfE so tal.. auI
ln iNU hAiWH W rH.'.. fHnt complained
nl N.tu 4h I' POW. Hl lIIr utu Are FlaI.uI
On, but Simply mistaken methods uIo made
good and valid. The land board was an
agent OF the legislature, and n IL did what
was not authorized such acts could be ratified
~ the leglhlature aud such ratification, II
" does not relieve the purchaser from any
OF tho obligations resting urOn him, would
not be such relief" us u forbidden by the
constitution
L iH not necessary for one claiming TO
hold under the validating net cited above
TO SHOW strict compliance with every re.
lullrment OF Tie statute, otherwise the
effect, but such compliance as would mega
Tive the presumption OF bad faith shoull he
shown Appellee had described tho land as
desired TO Introduce testimony going 10 show
mat the land was suitable for agricultural
purposes rms was evidence TO prove a
mateuhl tnct ana Its exclusion was enron.
eons' The charge Of the court should have
called TO the attention uf tho Jury that tho
hu,dcn OF proof was on the appcllces, The
luuBmcnt y reversed. opinion by Justice
Key chief Justice Fisher dld not sit In
this Cauc.
Z, Agltman \ Co. VS., II. k. York ct al,
Suit on notes given as part purchase
money tpr machinery sold appellees through
70 a9N y Low, AGENTS Of appellants Defense
or breach OF warranty, low 4 Low were
Implicated and Judgment was given against
lhem ior Slas In favor OF defendants nnd
E. ,g AGAINST plaintlns, Tho only con.
tract OF warranty made by Low \ Low wns
slai m Writing aud was In evidence. De.
MAIN , W., yllumeu breach Of verbal warranty
nlSeg by i ,S,s \ Low. II the Judgment was
Ihv Jury ought to have found for the an
Ps'l9ns to me full amount OF lhe notes
the written Warranty il was not snnnarted
10y the evidence for Il was not shown thnt
reluirements made therein OF nppcllees were
mot hy them. Appellants are entitled 10
Judgment for the amount OF mo rates my NJ
less breach OF written warranty IL shown
al,u 70 20 THIS the appellccs must show
compliance on their part with those speei
cations of the contract calling M ,vTlftcn
NOTICES, return Of defective parts and no
Ike unless such compliance il shown ~
ment are not sustained hy The tCstifnoiss
uce Key, - gus
NOTES AND COMMENTS.
=, me The French republic certainly carry their
Ihe tax levied on salt Is 50 diligei,tlv cni
iccted that person IL not allowed 10 take "a |
bucket , q ocean water to his home without |
The supreme court OF Pennsylvania has 70.
sthtll decided q case against double dpai /
ing OF brokers In which the Rlhlc Ia citea |
A. authority for the ruling The plninttS /
IN The case had paid the broker a eom,nis
Aun 90 NaiVtO dollars fur eifcctlng a sale of |
certain real estate, not knowing that NJ |
was nlso agent OF the purchaser and whom /
we iect was discovered suit was bought
pn ,n INC Nnuunt recovered, The court saws, /
we nave no doubt Of the right 10 recover
hloheN pMd rndcr such circuinstancrs IL /
y aralnst public policy and SOUND moralIte
iot man 90 act as hrnbcv for both parties
unless the fact Is fully Communicated y /
lhrui, The defendant attetnptci to sa,t ~
wv mAslerA There Is high authority for
sss,yinng that this can not be done. Matt
The American Law Journal asks ho
gssueN; why should not innocent men
Mne hlc convicted OF some crime crrOneousiv
nhd puaished, be reimbursed by tho sfsth
Tor the suffering they have untier,sons "
reason % such judicial errorf''
rue Following answer Il taken from an
AMfnauNe answer OF Mr.. r. L. R,md ~
yers be honcstr' saw
4, The Jury which acduits murderer WHOM,
~ evidence has proven guilty 10 ths ssf-
lslnytlon OF everybody else, win DO hoard
yNn5euininf lawyers for aiding crimlnAis m
etade Justice The dofaultinF bank reshtss
who has ust escaped tho pcultonfisrs ~
my psfsoverinE efforts, tho untirinr eaersy
sly iho eniinnut ability OF his counsel 49,
NAthiu q mouih, be heard dcnuuncinr L.
~ A. fohherA The client who has $780,
Iuuy mlsreprcaented his case 10 Ma c,qos-s
y, Mh,li ceSAing adyiea, after tho trial 4 mi
~ JUS ehlse oftho laNyer Who iai ~
'ii'o lo-ing lAveuit The defendiEt was