Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-14

against Morris 10 have the deed 20 the
latter declared a trust Ia favor OF the
former In his suit McGowm INTERVIEWED.
since me llnE on his p.cn of lnterveu-
ton said McGoWau has died leaving the
nppclrcs. -. A. MCGOWAN, Floyd McGuwau.
Mary slaughter aud Josephine Runcrh as
his heirs. W, e.. o. priscOll has also died
lguvlug appellant MckinuOu and ono Mar
gnrct brow as his ouly heirs. Tho last
nmmod having released ull hcr interest to
McGowun the plea Of Intervention by Nc
klnuOu az the trial below Wus only prose
rutCd % recover a Ouu-hplt Interest in the
lama. Tho lund nt the time uf the cNvcu-
so F2,pu, per acre uud the price at which
70 was hil u by Morris was grossly IN
adequate consideration thereof The vrr-
ul't VI tho jury uudcr the charge OF the
court establishes at the umu Of the issu-
hucu of the FIRST execution uuuu tho lulg-
mont lu favor of Drlscoi 90 Harris county
the defendant, Munger had personal prop
SrE IN that county subject 10 execution
SUFFICIENT 10 satisfy the same, but the
thcllu uld not call upou him fur levy
mi lac had NO opportunity 10 point out
the lnnd was cold dld not show upon lts
!Ace ilNt any prcyiuus execution had hpcu
lsSnrd upon the JUDGMENT und II appear
cu to have been ISSUED more than ono
g'uf Ntlrr the rendition thereof There
was no direct evidence that the irroguhii-
il" above referred 10 cOlduccd 60 the
inn9elu1te consideration at which the
iahh was sold Upon the verdict of the
Jury Judgment was icnd'r2d IN the court
ou1N caucellng The shcHn's sale OF the
lahu ana IN favor of the heirs oi McGowUn
Tor the recovery thereof from which main.
WI Mcknuun, appeals The othor .lufcu.
nenls cluiw under Morris pnl noue of
chnsers and they haye not appcnlci from
tua Judgment rendered. against thcm. The
ease has already been twice before our
9lm'wS, court 58 Texas, BIB, II 5. W..
OPINION.
INC court below gave the following
"lf sou mad IRON the evidence that said
y. 81 Munger resided IN Harris county
whore the Judgment m favor OF Drlsco1
NHnl4sl MIN was rendered and owned pes
subject " execution nt the time of tho
SUING out OF said execution sufficient TO
satisfy sah Judgmcut; but that said Drls.
Wv without pointing out said personal
property OF causing the sheriff 10 require
a1W munger to point out auid property
SEDUCTIVE execution TO Montague county
caused the land In controversy 10 be sold
uhder said execution without me knowledge
n s"ll Munger these tucis, N you had
iNrA are trilc, would constitute All irrCeu.
luNiN' aud appellant IA his nl.st assign.
mont complains of this charge "becnnse
Nttc was not testimony To warrant same
WIS eNicUntod to nlslead ana confuse tho
jury aud because N nn hregularlty could
uVl nave inMred tlir tisht OF uppcleps
nor u amy WAY affect The sale OF ihr
ana rs charge upon the weight
OF the evidence" THE other members OF
ne court are of opinion chat none of these
onlrctlons IA the ehargp are wen taiSch
Hnl were an 90 opinioU TINT ilo uhurgn
TX not subject 90 Cthcr OF tho objections
m0oe tO 10 IN the propositions presented
~ appellant mnler THIS UssignB.tnt Tho
hfet proposition hy appellant under tlls
u"lEnmcnt b. 0s follows, "hero irrcgulari-
mes m mukine q judicial sale Nhrn taken
in connpCiiou With gross mudouuncy OF
consideration Mil nos alOuc hO hold a suf.
hcicut ground ia vaCafe such sale unlpss
tho facts show TINT the Identical irregu.
larucs coudueel 10 such inadogpacy OF
lict A sVlsguucut paragraph of tho
gn4fRr cumpotely meets this proposition.
rms p0raeraph 90 thC charge rs Us fol
lows; ~ you hn0 from the evidence that
INC iNnl Ia controversy hf the sale thcrV-
nI ou tho 2ud day of AiIreh. 1870, when
ln' same was struck on % W. a, Morris
AS me agent nf W. G. o. brlsc0ll sofa Tor
irregularities above mentioned Couuuccd to
snch innieQuaty Of price, then Won win
nnd ior the mierponeri hut if yON find
nom the ,Nldcnce iiMi Mld lana dil uof
stll TOR q grossly Inadequate prlc0, on N lf
ull nQi SOL con Elotly Inadequate nrce
Net pr Tho IRREGULARITIES htfNnNclOro
mrnuOnrl dil not cQnlncH thereto Chen
you cannot hul for the interviewer 0nd tho
nuthra ot prooi rs un ne intprgeuprs 10
show llpt sail land sold f0r g grOssly
inAielnaie prlco and that the irrpgnlnli-
ueN aioYn mentioned on soulc uf them
cNt0ueed lhcrrto.H We are ~ opiuOn thnt
thls chargt presented The lnw ipou the
uueanpa laYoiygd IA the proposition as