Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 385
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] GOLDSTICKER V. FORD. 385
Syllabus.
in this character of suit was laid down by them very clearly in
accordance with the above cited authorities, and in harmony with
the views herein expressed on that subject. See the interesting case
of The tI. & Tex. C. R. R. Co. v. Rand, Tex. Ct. App., W. & W.
Civil Cases, sec. 255.
Under all the circumstances and facts of this case, as before stated,
we are of the opinion that the pleadings of the appellee, as finally
amended, set forth fairly enough a good cause of action, and a
proper case for the character of damages demanded.
We do not consider the objection raised to the introduction in
evidence of the testimony of the physicians, Doctors Antonyand
Threat, as well taken. As a matter of fact, too, it appears from the
record that a Doctor Threat was the first physician who was in actual
attendance on the appellee.
It would have been more satisfactory, perhaps, to have had before
the jury the evidence of the other attending physician; the record
shows, however, that he was prevented from' testifying by sickness
at the time of the trial. Under the circumstances, the admission of
the evidence of Doctor Antony worked no injury to the appellant,
and was, we think, competent evidence as to the matters to which
he testified.
The Texas cases cited by the appellant have all been carefully
examined, and are not believed to contain anything at variance with
the views herein expressed, as applied to the special case in hand.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
[Opinion delivered November 11, 1884.]
H. GOLDSTICKER ET AL. V. P. S. FORD, COUNTY JUDGE.
(Case No. 1637.)
1. LIQUOR LAW - PENAL BOND - STATUTE CONSTRUED.- Suit was brought
against a retail liquor dealer and the sureties on his official bond, under the
act of April 4, 1881 (Gen'l Laws, p. 113), for knowingly permitting a minor
to enter upon and remain in the retail liquor dealer's place of business. It
was shown that the minor was employed by tile defendant to aid him in his
grocery with the written consent of the boy's mother; that before being employed
there he had been out of employment for a month, and had been
unable to procure employment elsewhere; that his mother was poor, and
that his wages were greater than he could otherwise have obtained. On
appeal from a judgment against the defendant and his sureties, held:
(1) The legislature intended the penal statute which provides a penalty
against any one who shall knowingly sell or give spirituous liquors to a
minor (P. C., 376) to remain in force unaffected by the act of April 4, 1881.
VOL. LXII - 25
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/407/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .