The Texas Civil Appeals Reports Volume 51 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 edition. Excerpt: ... admission of evidence from a third party of conversations with plaintiff, not in defendant's presence, was not ground for reversal where the same matter was also brought out by defendant in his cross-examination of plaintiff. In a suit for breach of promise of marriage, letters of plaintifl to defendant, if containing matter relevant to the issue, might be admissible in evidence; and where they were shown to be in possession of defendant's counsel, who, upon notice to produce them given in the course of the trial, declined to do so, the refusal to produce was a proper subject for comment by plaintifl"s counsel in argument. Allegations of an express undertaking to marry, not stated to be in writing. may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and a proposal of marriage and its acceptance would constitute such express contract. Plaintifl relying on a promise of marriage with no date set, and also a subsequent agreement fixing the date, it was proper for the court to instruct the jury that the promise, without date for performance, implied an agreement to marry within a reasonable time. Where plaintifl"s pleading and evidence showed an unconditional agree ment to marry and denied any agreement releasing the defendant therefrom, and defendant's, a conditional promise from which he had been released, neither asserting a renewal after release, a. charge that if the agreement had been an nulled and was afterwards renewed defendant would be bound thereby, was not ground for reversal, it being improbable that the jury were misled thereby. Error in the charge relating to punitory damages was harmless to defendant where none were recovered. A requested charge limiting the purpose for which the jury could consideI the testimony...