*1 points overruled. All defendant’s
Affirmed. CORPORATION, Radio d/b/a TANDY Shack, Tandy Radio A Shack and Company, Corporation Appellant, McGREGOR, Appellee. L. Donald
No. 8272. Texas, Appeals of Court of Civil Texarkana. Aug. Rehearing Denied Sept. *2 charge,
court’s will not be be- considered objections such were not cause reduced writing presented and to the trial court in with compliance Rules 272 and Tex.R. Tandy’s failure to present Civ.P. such ob- writing to jections judge the trial for of rulings sig- his endorsement and official days sixty nature within after of rendition or judgment date of order overruling mo- for trial was to having tion new fatal the consider appellate Tandy’s points court of error related thereto because the trial court Further, of jurisdiction had lost the case. not appellant good has shown cause its for timely file objections failure its written charge. to the court’s Commercial Stan- Maxwell, Kurth, James S. Thomas E. Company dard Insurance v. Southern Farm Gwinn, Crawford, Seay, Blakeney, & Mebus Casualty Bureau Insurance Company, Dallas, appellant. (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1974, writ). no Crowder, Mattox, A. Don Crowder & Dal-
las, appellee. The pertinent facts related to the disposi-
case
tion of this are as follows:
RAY, Justice.
On December
a worthless check
of
bearing
in the sum
printed
$104.20
the
a
prosecution,
This is
suit for malicious
McGregor,
Don
name of
his Dallas address
imprisonment and
false
abuse of
signed
McGregor”
“Don
and
was issued to
McGregor
(plaintiff)
Donald L.
Shack, one
Tandy’s
Radio
of
stores. When
brought
against appellant (defendant)
suit
presented
was
the check
payment
for the
of
Corporation,
Tandy
d/b/a Radio Shack and
to the salesperson
merchandise
at the Radio
Shack,
Tandy
A
Corporation Compa-
Radio
store, the temporary
Shack
driver’s license
ny (hereinafter
Tandy)
referred to as
seek-
McGregor
presented
a Don
was
for iden-
ing
recovery
damages
a
having
his
tification and that number was recorded on
in the
been incarcerated
Dallas
Jail
along
the back of
check
with a descrip-
charge
passing
on a
worthless
check
person passing
tion
the check. The
to appellant.
jury
sum of $104.20
check,
salesperson accepting the
Kendall
McGregor
found in
favor
on his counts of
Tatum, verified the authenticity
sig-
of the
imprisonment
false
and
abuse of
nature on
check
comparing it with
Tandy
but
in favor of
found
on the mali-
temporary
driver’s license and
prosecution
cious
count. The trial court
took the
manager
then
check
the store
judgment upon
entered
jury
verdict and
approval.
for his
The check was approved
McGregor the
$10,000.00
awarded
sum of
manager,
Ware,
store
I.
Richard
damages
$15,000.00
actual
exemplary
accepted
payment for
as
the merchandise.
damages. The trial court overruled Tan-
McGregor testified that on the
fol-
Monday
dy’s
verdict,
motions for directed
judgment
lowing
theft
his
wallet,
checks and
verdicto,
non obstante
remittitur and mo-
he called the Northwest National Bank and
Appellant
tion for new trial.
has perfected
reported the theft and asked the bank not
appeal to this court
twenty-
its
and submits
any
to honor
checks
authorized or exe-
points
two
of error for our consideration.
question
cuted
him. The check in
was
points
4, 7, 8, 9,
Appellant’s
error
deposited for collection on more than one
objections
13 and
related to
to the
and each time
occasion
the check
re-
was
Funds,”
“Insufficient
as dis-
turned marked
who actually passed the worthless check.
any
other reason for the
tinguished
charges
the criminal
were dismissed,
After
being returned
as
check
such
unauthorized
against
McGregor
appellants.
filed suit
stop
signature
payment
or a
notice. On
appellee McGregor
Nowhere does
4, 1970, Ware,
Mr.
the store mana-
January
the warrant
complain that
which he was
McGregor
attempted
to contact
tele-
*3
ger,
was insufficient in form or
arrested
was not
check,
regarding the bad
at his home
phone
by
having jurisdic
a court or official
issued
father,
by McGregor’s
who
was advised
but
complete
issue it. “It is a
to
defense
tion
to
the telephone,
McGregor
answered
that
no
imprisonment
for false
an action
that
expected
there but he
to see
longer lived
by
process,
or detention was
virtue of
arrest
McGregor
days
pass
in a few
and would
on
form,
duly
sufficient
in
and
legally
issued
regarding the
check to
the information
bad
having jurisdiction
a court or official
by
to
When Mr. Ware had received no
appellee.
Imprisonment
it.”
35
False
issue
C.J.S.
McGregor by
or contact from
Janu-
advice
27, p.
The
is
presumption
Sec.
letter,
8, 1970,
a
he forwarded
certified
ary
McGregor
under which
was
warrant
arrest
receipt requested, McGregor
to
at his
return
form,
by competent
valid in
issued
ed was
requesting
known address
him to
last
con-
complaint.
authority on a sufficient
days regarding
within ten
tact Mr. Ware
upon McGregor
was
proof
of
on his
burden
Subsequently,
check.
the return
the bad
imprisonment
by
of false
to show
count
a
receipt
the certified letter to McGre-
from
the evidence that
of
his de
preponderance
showing
was received Mr. Ware
that
gor
process.
under valid
was not
35
tention
plaintiff’s
delivered to
letter had been
27,
Imprisonment
supra;
False
Sec.
C.J.S.
testified that on
Mr. Ware
Janu-
address.
Tex.Jur.2d,
Imprisonment,
33,
False
25
Sec.
27, 1970,
a standard com-
prepared
he
ary
266;
Am.Jur.2d,
Imprisonment,
False
p.
32
furnished to him the District
form
plaint
102;
37,
Stevens,
p.
Pate v.
257
Sec.
for “hot” check offenses
Attorney’s Office
1953,
(Tex.Civ.App.
763
Texarkana
writ
Attorney’s
sent this to
District
Of-
dism’d);
Parks,
Rader v.
in such or im ON MOTION FOR REHEARING proper (3) use of damage that This case was transferred from plaintiff resulted to the irregulari Appeals the Court of Civil for the Fifth Am.Jur.2d, ty. Process, 1 Abuse of 4.” Sec. Judicial Supreme District at Dallas to the at least one There is Texas case which Appeals of Civil Court the Sixth Su probable states that “want of cause” is an preme Judicial District at Texarkana on an element to a essential cause of action for equalization dockets the Supreme abuse of Robert & St. John Motor pursuant of Texas Court 1738, Article Bumpass, (Tex.Civ. Co. v. 399 Appellee, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Donald L. 1933, App. dism’d). Eastland writ See also McGregor, filed his motion dismiss Am.Jur.2d, Process, Abuse of p. Sec. appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals for the and footnote No. 4 p. on 255 for a Supreme Fifth Judicial asserting District holding collection of cases that malice and appellant Tandy that properly had not per probable want of cause are essential ele appeal its transcript fected because the of the cause of ments action. the record did not include Tandy’s original Gilford, supra,
It was then stated in motion for new trial. The motion was over might argued respect that “While it be on ruled the Court of Civil Appeals for the authority procuring ed that the issuance of Judicial Supreme Fifth District at Dallas. subsequent of arrest and the a warrant This concurs in that ruling. Court We hold purpose extorting arrest of one for the appellant timely perfected that its appeal. payment money procur transcript to the one so contains Tandy’s amended warrant the one arrested ing the would motion for new trial which bears a notation of Dallas the District Clerk original motion for new trial was filed MERRELL, Jr., Appellant, H. D. 26, 1974, which was within ten April April the date of the days from MERRELL, Appellee. Rita Mae Supreme trial court. Our judgment of the to cut the costs and time in an effort Court No. 845. has entered ah or- appeal an perfecting
in Texas, Appeals Court Civil of a tran- preparation related to the der Tyler. 376-a, Tex.R.Civ.P., to Rule script pursuant Aug. stating part following: “Where a filing Rehearing Sept. 18, has been substituted Denied pleading pleading, pleadings prior all of an amended discarded the amendment classed as and shall not be included in the
pleadings transcript specially requested by unless presumed be no- It will
counsel.” by the District Clerk on the amended tation transcript included as to pleadings filing original pleadings the date of the contrary correct date unless the is is the *5 the face of the record or upon shown provided by the Rules of methods other Procedure. Had wanted to Civil jurisdiction seriously contest of this appellant’s original on the basis that Court filed, timely trial was not for new motion requested transcript could have he original motion for new trial include to this Court the date of thus disclose original motion. Rule filing of the The same could have been Tex.R.Civ.P. by supplemental transcript. Rule done Tex.R.Civ.P. appellee’s examined other as-
We have unpersua- error and find them signments of sive. rehearing motion for is over-
Appellee’s ruled.