Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-18
COURT OF APPEALS.
Full Teh Of Decisions Rendered In the Forl
Worth District

court NJ Clyn Appcals-First district. y.
ID. Inrliun. chict justice; n. %. Head and
hun, clerk
NJ. al ". j. Dooley. ct al. appellants. VI.
NJ NJ. Miller apppllce' appeal from Johu-
OPINION.
THE controversy involves the tile lo a
~ OF leWeiiN recovered by appellee from
~ j. DpOlry ana q. " Cotter. appellants
~ became "a meiriHl Inquiry on the trial ln
lhr court below, whether The iewclry was
,hc proprely OF ,eWellee. VI. NJ. .lltlcr or
lef son, H. a. Miller uF a member uf the
ulW or w. 4, Miller x Co., " which hrn
appellant NJ. j, DO0lcy. was the other parf-
nrr The Jewelsy had been deposited win
appellant. Cpttrr to Indemnity him aa thc
surely Of the firm Tor n hrui debt. which
debt Nus afterwards priu Dpulny olEltus
thli the jcWciry had not only been deposit.
ta Tor ialN p'ppose' but also that u had
pecuHle g iAv VI The nrtn assets. This WIS
ntnird by appellee aud her son II. A
Miller.
The nrst assignment Of error complains
~ the exclusion of Testimony, az appears
lf0m Tie bll OF exceptions. Substantially rs
follows; "rht plgiutim having iutiOducsd
me witness. x. a. MILLER; after the uOnrlg.
son vi .he drrct examination OF suld Wit
hrNh' d'lthduuIs counsel, on cross eNnulu.
htlon, asked the witness the following uues.
uou' uld you or not. on or about the
uny OF January 1851 write u certain lei.
ger TO defnniunt. VI. j. Dpolay ina which
you stiue that yOu would send 10 L0ulsylile
AZ, aud redeem certaiu ieweliy and nfirr
fWu no'uItu lht saipc Son would put it
mo lIr tusincss OF L. \. Miller * Co, and
uprhuNnt. NJ j. booley could Use ID or g,,il
II 60 raise money for said busluessYT Tu
Mhlch uurHlpn said witness replied that he
WI nor MIle any such letter Mhcrettpon
Hl'ngonl counsel exhibited q certain lea.
yer OF dniC dny OF January 1857. pur.
porting ~ have btCn written ly said ,vit
tWh,' ~ a. Mulof, To said defendant "A
sai 55'eI wa ASKED s9ld witness II he wrote
ne dii, uud after plulutln bad closed nor
testimony, defendant NJ j. DoDlpv a.
Terrell Sud loiter dated day of january
1871, purporllug to have beon written a.,
said Wiuless 10 defendant Nj 4 n,,l.'.
ana containing "a IL thp statement that Nh
ness H. a. Miller would send TO Iouisyiiln
ny" uh1 redeem certain Jewelry, and after
ne received u, be- would put n INTO tbc
business W u. A. Miiier a 10. ana soi6
H'Iehdhnt ~ j. Douicy, could usc or g,li
H. 70 raise money for said business
we introduction VI HIS testimony was. thnt
she hhd called tho witness only to urnvc
,ur purpose Tor which the property hnd
hvgt' pleuFen 10 VII: TO secure ne fimn
uepl hnh mat this debt had been pntd ma
mat she had intrWUcated tho VItn"ss MI,
on THESE issues, TITS objection Is NH smy
tainsd NY me record. Ia bis Testimony I'M
mothers aud has always been - ''"N''' ~
rue second objection was that tho do,
iWa'lon was not shown 10 have oonn to
~ ~ ihhvNloNFe OF hppellee ana she cotld
not DE bound thereby. '''"
The third aud last objection was tbot
u was nm inmaterial Inquiry ana hpnco ~
Withe7S coud not Voc c0lfrnlicted thereon
II seems perfectly ,lCar 10 rs thnt 1,o
testimony WIS udinsyihlr ND lpast rnnt,s,
dict ana lls,rcllt The Witness. Tho evidrncs
was very cOuh uns between Wltnp.sss 80
plaintiff ana defendants below ana O,or',
fore the question OF crcilhnltv Wag ON ~
primo Importance. AlessrH Miller mus ie,f,-
lish w, Iannett 90 Texas. 81 The eroir
mou OF this evidence thereto, norossltatcs
q reversal 81 the judgment
NnWpillpt was also made az the r,,,,t,
NCilpn IN giving and refusing obsr,,ee
without reviewing la detail mo ,.bnr,,ss
glNrn ana refused. ga view OF niotbes AIM
We suggest that NJ tho ploadlnrs anJ ,,,,',,
should be cubs mttinily the sntup a. I'M, tIi
RECORD discl0sOa that the foilntring is n,'
bl appropriate Instructions Should BE- sUb'
mitted' "' SUD
d ., Whether or not the property belonged
.. n. Tho tide 10 ihc propcrfy y,os Il,
nv, Mhethet or not by hor Constut N ma
nn'eVue 2 part OF the assets of ihe 6rm ~
H. ~ a. Muller CO., as claimed by boo.
u the jury shoeld ind the affirmative q,
we hfNl issue ana TIE negative mi nv, ~. !"
",iu1 lNv NtNhei should BE- for nppeiic, mi
HWlhf should lw agamsi her NV ''"'
W lglhN va, cnNrt t0Aa tue pr,n.r ,,i..,,.
VIEW oi l'olier's liability fnP rostg '''N
nc ludHnent VIII bc rerersi.J ami ,,.
'""He f''nAnded Tor Gew ulal. Wv