Case ID: sw_163/html/0630-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KEY, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO. v. BATTE.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    Feb. 4, 1914.)
    Trial (§ 256*) — Live Stock — Action for Damages — Instructions.
    . Where a charge correctly defined negligence in an action for injury to cattle shipped, if defendant desired a correct definition of the “ordinary care,” it should have requested an instruction correctly defining the term, and cannot complain because the charge defining it was meaningless.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 628-641; Dec. Dig. § 256.*]
    Appeal from Milam County Court; John Watson, Judge.
    Action by R. L. Batte against the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Henderson, Kidd & Gillis, of Cameron, for appellant. U. S. Hearrell, of Cameron, for appellee.
   KEY, C. J.

This is a cattle shipping case, and, from a judgment for the plaintiff for $176, this appeal is prosecuted.

It is not contended that the verdict of the jury is not supported by testimony. All of the assignments complain of the court’s charge. It must be conceded that the attempted definition in the charge of ordinary care is not only inartistic, but is meaningless. However, the charge gave a correct definition of negligence; and, if appellant desired a correct definition of ordinary care, it should have prepared and requested an instruction giving such definition.

The other objections to the charge are without merit. No reversible error has been pointed out, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.