alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 8 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SUSAN NEVITT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. THOMAS FITCH, Judge, Defendant-Appellee. No. 03-2037 (District of New Mexico) (D.C. No. CIV-02-1580 WPJ/LFG)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , MURPHY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Susan Nevitt, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights complaint against New Mexico state court Judge Thomas Fitch and-2-

its decision to strike her “Notice by Plaintiff of Filing a Peremptory Challenge to District Judge” (the “Notice”). This court exercis es jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms

. In striking the Notice, the district court noted th at it was based on a New Mexico Supreme Court decision which allows any party the right to exercise a peremptory challenge to a state district court judg e for any reason. The district court noted, however, that no such right exists und er federal law and that the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court was not bi nding on a federal district court. As to Nevitt’s underlying civil rights comp laint, the district court noted that Judge Fitch is absolutely immune from suit forcivil liability for acts taken in his judicial capacity unless he acted in the acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See generally Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Because Nevitt had not alleged any facts indicating Judge F itch acted in the absence of jurisdiction, and because the record affirmatively indicated the underlying state court water dispute was within Judge Fitch’s jurisd iction, the district court concluded Judge Fitch was entitled to absolute immunity. This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint on judicial immunity grounds, using the same standards it employs when reviewing a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka , 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 1999). Uponde novo review of the district court order-3-

of dismissal and consideration of the parties’ brie fs and the entire appellate record, this court AFFIRMS for substantially those reasons set out by the dis trict court in its order of dismissal dated December 31, 2002. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Abbey A. Donaldson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/aadonald\/","title":"NASA, Department of Agriculture Advance Exploration, Science","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VhsUL58Uao\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-department-of-agriculture-advance-exploration-science\/\">NASA, Department of Agriculture Advance Exploration, Science<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-department-of-agriculture-advance-exploration-science\/embed\/#?secret=VhsUL58Uao\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, Department of Agriculture Advance Exploration, Science” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VhsUL58Uao\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/nhq202306210041.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":286}
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Aaron Robert Thomas, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-00019-01-PHX-DJH

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on September 8, 2017. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 11th day of September, 2017. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 56 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                 H. R. 56

    To authorize establishment of a Department of Veterans Affairs 
           ambulatory care facility in Brookhaven, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize establishment of a Department of Veterans Affairs 
           ambulatory care facility in Brookhaven, New York.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. VETERANS' AMBULATORY CARE FACILITY, BROOKHAVEN, NEW YORK.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is authorized to establish an 
ambulatory care facility for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 
Brookhaven, New York. Depending on which is more cost effective, the 
Secretary shall establish such a facility by lease of an existing 
facility or by construction of a new facility.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Margaret Sadosky,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03452-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8518 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8518 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Apollo 17","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2iq6wpRIM4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/apollo-17\/\">Apollo 17<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/apollo-17\/embed\/#?secret=2iq6wpRIM4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo 17” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2iq6wpRIM4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S72-50438\/S72-50438~large.jpg?w=600&h=1441&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1441}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60516 Summary Calendar

LARRY WESLEY LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NED HOLDER, Sheriff; AARON TROTTER, Deputy; DEPUTY SWIFT; BILL WEEKS; JOHN DOE (1), Sheriff’s Surety Bonding Company; JOHN DOE (2), Deputy Jailor or Jailor Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-191-D-B

- - - - - - - - - - February 23, 1998 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Wesley Lawrence, Mississippi state prisoner # 46006, is appealing the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment entered in this case.No. 96-60516 -2- We have reviewed the record, including the brief filed by Lawrence, and have determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Lawrence’s motion for additional relief is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
PAGE 1 of 2

1 Nina Rabin, AZ Bar #025246

2 Workers’ Rights Clinic

3 James E. Rogers College of Law, Univ. of Arizona

4 1145 N. Mountain Ave.

5 Tucson, AZ 85719

6 Telephone: (520) 621-9206

7 Fax: (520) 626-5233

8 rabin@email.arizona.edu

9 Attorney for Plaintiffs Albino Cardenas and Marina Hernandez

10

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

13

14 ____________________________________________

15 )

16 ALBINO CARDENAS AND MARINA HERNANDEZ )

17 ) Case No. 4:15-cv-00518-LAB

18 Plaintiffs, )

19 )

20 v. ) NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY

21 ) DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO

22 THOMAS E. MONGAN AND KAREN E. MONGAN. ) FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

23 ) 

24 Defendants. )

25 ____________________________________________)

26

27 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

28

29 Plaintiffs Albino Cardenas and Marina Hernandez hereby notice voluntary 

30 dismissal with prejudice of above captioned case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

31 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

32 The Defendants have neither filed an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. 

33 Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may dismiss this action against the aforementioned 

34 Defendants without a court order.

35

36

37

Case 4:15-cv-00518-LAB Document 26 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 of 2

1 Tucson, AZ

2 Dated this 21st day of October 2016.

3 Respectfully submitted, 

4 BY: _/s/ Nina Rabin____________

5 Nina Rabin

6 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:15-cv-00518-LAB Document 26 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:16-mj-01035-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01035-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01035-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         774,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,359,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,081,295
<PP&E>                                       2,531,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                 910,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,952,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,035,885
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,774
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,716,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,952,268
<SALES>                                     31,501,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,501,236
<CGS>                                       17,187,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,426,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             257,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (370,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (152,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (218,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (218,414)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
Case 2:98-cr-00353-SMM Document 244 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:98-cr-00353-SMM Document 244 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2873 

To extend the authority of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Iowa to hold court in Rock Island, Illinois. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa to hold court in Rock 

Island, Illinois. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HOLDING OF COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DIS4 TRICT OF IOWA. 

5 Section 11029 of the 21st Century Department of 

6 Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 95 

7 note; Public Law 107–273; 116 Stat. 1836) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘July 1, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘July 1, 2006’’. 

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Roxana Bardan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbardan\/","title":"Annual Science Conference to Feature NASA Leadership, Research","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xTrgHOKUQJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/annual-science-conference-to-feature-nasa-leadership-research\/\">Annual Science Conference to Feature NASA Leadership, Research<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/annual-science-conference-to-feature-nasa-leadership-research\/embed\/#?secret=xTrgHOKUQJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Annual Science Conference to Feature NASA Leadership, Research” — NASA\" data-secret=\"xTrgHOKUQJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/melroy-large-agu-2023.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":510}
#### Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. *v.*Garrett Elkin.

Railroads — Injury to Cattle — Special Contract.

There can be no binding special agreement by which a railroad can avoid its responsibility for the negligent injury to cattle by its trainmen.

Instructions May be Construed Together.

Instructions to a jury may be construed together so as to give the proper effect to all.

APPEAL EROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

June 23, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Eobertson:

The jury had a right to disregard the alleged pass and consider *272the carrier’s responsibility unqualified by any special contract, and, in this phase of the case, it was the duty of the officers controlling the train to know that the mule sued for was down and to have righted it without delay. And even if there was a binding special agreement imposing that care on the .owner’s agent, still, if the conductor knew that the mule was down, he was guilty of gross negligence in refusing the agent ample time to raise it; and, on either hypothesis, the evidence authorized the verdict, as to enlabie negligence.

Dunlap, *for appellant.*

*McKee, for appellee.*

Had what is called the second been all the instruction given, there would have been fatal error in its pretermission of the hypothesis of the jury’s belief that the death of the mule resulted from its being down. But the first and second constitute but one *alternative*instruction, and the first branch of it requiring such belief by the jury should be understood as applying to the second branch, and we presume that the court and the jury so understood.

The mule was not valued so high as the legal standard might have authorized.

And however conflicting, the evidence authorized every deduction necessary to sustain the verdict, which therefore we can not disturb.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.