Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-27

| the Missouri Pacific company until after
the completion Of most, II not an oil tue
work In question. Only one witness , r9I u
meets this company with the WORK. lh i.s
was for the jury. We 90 no, gonJ l.l.,,i y,
the proposition that this court should
! take such kDowlelgc Of the fact thar i9e
| Missouri Pncitc company participated III
| the construction Of the Taylor. Bastfop
and Houston railroad friOr 20 the trans
| fer Of the former to the latter rs as
closed by the record. Tie Jndslhehl y
reversed and the cause remanded' Oplh-
ion by Key, A. j.
Taylor, Bastrop and Houston Railway
| company ct al VI. Speed, from Bdstrop.
There are two transcripts IN TINS cnse,
one on appeal, the other OH WITT Oh error
by same parties The questions hrc Tue
same, and as the case on alpeal uast
case shovel has been decided tue wiz
Of error will he dismissed ~ Coz. 81
plaintiffs In error. Opinion by Key, a. j.
Dunman vs.. Cloud. from Coleman
action of tre5pnss to try title. Appellees
claim as heirs Of u. w. Cloud, who was
killed nj the Alamo 1t was shown that
he was never married, but II was not
shown that either his father or m0ther
We're dead. though II Is true that II
these parents were living they are ex-
prcstiinrd from the facts shown. APP
pennnts sought TO avail themselves OF
this omission by special charge, which
was refused, az was new lr1hl. inns
was error and the judgment Is reversed
and the cause rtmnnied. Opinion by
Key, A. j.
international and Great Northern Rat
way company ". Faiths from Travis
Suif TO recover value of baggage lost De
tween Austin. Tex, aud Waukeshn, WIS.
The property lost was jewelry, WHEN
was locked in 4 trunk when given in
charge to appellant and found missing
when the trunk was opened at itS des-
tination. Appellants limited its liability
TO its own line and also on the trip to
an amount not exceeding 500. The
court below conceded that appellant
would De bound only for loss occurring
on It's own line under the contract, but
held that the burden rested upon IT to
show that the loss occurred upon one
Of the connecting lines, TIE author
ties on this point are not clear. When
goods are shipped over several lines and
damage the burleE Is on the last com
pany to show that they were received
In such damaged condition, but where
there is total loss the burden Is on
the receiving company to show that they
were delivered 10 the next succeeding
l,qs. 10. TO A'''' 'S'' . F'' go o.
If there Is 20 be q presumption at all.
II Ought 10 be against the COMPANY who
is proved to have received the goods,
rather than the company who hrs ulf
been shown To have htd po4-Cssipl Of
them in any condition. Whsl re de-
fcndnnt received the go9ls II became
liuhle for them, subject 10 the rNrep-
ton; mud we think that the onus wis
upon defendant TO SHOW thlt ii cane
within the exception 81 .hlL;rl N the
contract. Try. W. Ryan, Gj Trs ~;
but see Adams VS. H. Co, IS Tex
8I2l IT this is cus'c,t, there was ~
error in giving judgment for The fLll
amount, rs common 'I-rrr cannot
contract against iilaN ty fO7 Us own
negligence ~, Tex, llOD The iudg-
men! Is Nllrined. 'lIini1u Icy CjllHil,
~ ~ hey y. Ip iii not sit in this
'''Ne'
T,,, 80. a -
ny ronrl o. criminal appeals decided
'nHt iom,""tHg phses May y:
pdi, -, Mill vs.. tue state. from III
,, ",o' 'Vm9pltncy TO iop' THIS o0cnse
or In tbe co,Iniy whore W. i, ,s inferred int2
II shonii he eyscntcJ \, w. s,a iltruue,
facts nunanrs In tbn tr,,,s,,.i,,, OF
il rnusiirr1lde vnri,nc" H., H. u.u tnvtc
nj the ,tinrns,s rn',r..l'',,, w. ouluuNits
fpu1ptt md tn .tnt. ltt ~ ~
tlnt M. Iiliy.uc,. ,,,n9 ,,.aI n,. W. XIV see
In have 5t,te,n',,, ,,' uS ,I,e uel'use
,ontr,r, il srrn,s tb,i "" wy
tt. tnn5t Jsatrons az Ga,.i,,., a., olalr WIS
rrtt"r' un irb.r, L. ~ 't1.vinell,
.g,J b,. i,J,,,n.rt ,r,,'to "Ip9rthl
In, Sin'nuR "'' u'"' NPlhioh
w
1i,,i,. u-ut,,,s 49, a.. g..
pavJ,, ,,,,,'i,,,,l, wv ',utt, from
no n.,,,, y, ~, ttNftNhyl Oh
il nss,,ncl ,ror VIZ, N'ia ,u'iemse
The deceased. vixen Tho lnttrr ni"Ged mn
n piece of miami, In r,spol,sr to n tI,rrnt
of defendant. The defendant thru woll.
cd INTO a house. nat down a hucLnt nf
water and walked ant up,,in Dsrnasoi
then sirnrk hrr with titr mani ytiicI,
hrnkn from The binw bromnir,' T,n
broLcn nirre She plnced both hnnJs ,nn,,
defendnnt'S hrnnst aud ,vns nmsLir,, Xxx.
whom she was stabbed W. cn,, ~" i.a
M self. Iefcnsc IN his Thorn ,s"s ma
val ar ,nn,rnrt dnurnr M. Il, I,,',., -"
IL ',e;.,,l p,in,nn H., l;,',,ili',- Ni1"'
~ '"'"'' 80
=, FRANK Mlsher W. the state, from
Harris assault 70 murder. defendant
m Mn, in tns 'S in1s Vi n Miii,n tn'y ~.
, ,u"nt I'ulr ~ ~ ~, ~ iiVuuH"r tucu
m."t uot"s, ~ H. IT, 1,T.o', uHu Tg.9F ~
5i s'you GUY ' , ~ i",s n"u S",eu 10
Nlm'N W NoW' w" ""V NNtNN thN Nlult'I'
Mill,h got q insVot a a,f' W''t 20 ,ne u9 1