Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-03-22

J" Austin. Tex. March 21-The follow
lflNIg synopses Of opinions rendered
he supreme court at Its last sit
II. Blum VS.. W. H. Jones ct al.
"a. " OF error to the fourth district.
Tuai v BY plaintiff in error against the
nh and his suretiesto recover the
u Of goods seized by him under
o. attachment issued against one
ISLANDER. Defendants answered
plaintiffs claimed under transfer
fredlander, and that the trans
vas fraudulent and void as to
'soa~ ueditors OF Friedlander. There
Evidence tending to show that
2le was the result of a fraudu-
combination between plaintin
|llflIA Fredlander and there was
Iul1 .1nt In the evidence upon the ques-
whether the value of the goods
aseled the credit given by the
ak AEurs upon their own claim and
IN Nbis they assumed to pay. The
NnQ Nmpny to the effect that the no
..,i IL Who took the deposition Of Syl-
w Bum, one of the plaintiffs, was
~ 1p'oye of the firm should have
1cuded A deposition taken by
/. I'd Wcer not legally competent for
Az & hason to perform that duty
lAFi ID % be suppressed upon written
iair Reasonably filed. But II not
|U ta.'fut the party piltibit ~ -
N 80 10 have It read without the
N II M ss.pa4 which may attach to 1t in
~ eads OF the Jury. by proof that
|, y Aeer by reason of his relation to
w W. triies was not legally authorized
- y Such proof Is calculated
X ~ ftludice the tesa mony with the
though II is not legally compe-
neai ID AFFECT the credibility of the
The validity OF the deposit
ehF IA u q QtlQuftno the court 0lOnts
.,,, IA u held valid IL should be given to
',,a1 His H.'uiy impeached upon the ground
pyOua was not lawfully taken.
BiAl sA 10 suppress the deposition was
4 ~ and oyerruled.- This is not as
eais' as error. but In view OF an
Nlal the court deems II proper
IN ~ mat the motion should have
~ sustained. The fact that the
sas sIs an employe In a mercantile
,, sdr lahment belonging TO one of the
. tt1a ~ 70 the suit. ought to rendel
lpompetent to take u deposition
Il 2, @nall OF his employer, and es
pis1 sne deposition OF the employ
SQUIRT also erred In admitting
AN lM Tumony Of Frledlander in refer
lvls PTS statement Of the value o
Atna. oous made 20 the agent OF al
y ..isiI r. ss company; and also In ad
~ ne written statement of thei
- made In the application for in
r~n4 He was defendants owl
A2MW ., and II was therefore not com
~ TT the purpose OF impeachin
, q WI Nather declaration was In dc
= N1s4 ~ Of the title OF witness
= re'nle at ALL they We're admiss
he declaration OF a cocoon
II the alleged conspirac
4 M. lived charge OF fraunuler
n V4 .ss, and II such conspiracy ha
w ma facie established 1t ma
a <JI 'he evidence would have bee
rVAl#s hat the combination allega
Z. fM eat the former should hu
ile..4.1W I,t'n credit. not Intending
a,ii s.i 9 - "A mem. and shonld transit
< %. ~ . ~. plaintif Ia satisfaction Of Il
Il " ~ ess in part at least fictitiou
~ q ~. = IL 49, ance q tho goods rs NJ
\ e e Z. i ~ circumstance which eth
49, IL 1,Htnt or caHts suspicion ups
',o-- = transactlon. THE eylden
Z y W. n S.rEsiy more than he a.nou
"A. Nt,fW ~ ,.neir value was assessed
I'd "a y. N ,h " plaintiffa. and may ha'
Il l,ssIS ~ Jury 10 find Tor defenda
r1aesal rule it is matter