The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-06-15
Supreme Court.

Dwyer VS.. Hackworth; appeal from
Washington county.-The city of b. hav-
ing assumed control of her public schools,
the council in 1880 had authority to SUBJ
nit to a vote of the property tax payers
the proposition to raise by taxation such
an amount, in addition to that derived
from the state, us would be necessary for
the conduct of the free schools for ten
months, not to exceed one-halt OF one per
cent. The result of said election being
duly canvassed and declared, and no pro-
ceedlng having bee n Instituted to contest
the election, it is not competent to have
said result inquired into in this suit. The
city council, by virtue of the affirmative
vote of the taxpayers, were authorized
to levy tax not to exceed one-half of
one per cent, and the discretion of the
council in fixing such necessary amount
will not be revised. Under the assumed
control of the public schools, public
school houses within the city limits be-
came public buildings, and n tax of one
fourth of one per cent. for their erection
was valid. The charter authorizing the
borrowing of money, which was done by
the issue of bonds, the validity of a tax
to pay interest thereon is not affected by
by subsequent appropriations to an I'M
authorized purpose. The charter pro-
vided that whenever the property owner
and assessor could not agree on the value
of property to be assessed, such valuation
should be fixed by the committee of as
sessment. After the property owner in
this case had render ed, and the assessor
had accepted the valuation, this commit
tee, without the knowledge or consent of
the taxpayer, increased the valuation.
Held, that this action of the committee
was Illegal and void.-Gould, G. j.
Houston and Texas Central rail-
way VS.. O'Hare; appeal from Ma
varro county.---The injury for which
damages were recovered was re-
ceiyed while coupling cars, the
gravamen of the action being such de-
feet in the engine as to prevent its being
brought under complete control of the
engineer. The evidence shows that the
engine was being reversed, to be sent to
Houston for repairs. Upon exemplary
damages the court charged that II the in
jury was the result of defective ma
chinery, and defendants and agents used
it, knowing It's defects, and plaintiff was
injured without fault on his part, the
jury could find exemplary, in addition to
actual damas es, in such an amount as
would be justified by the evidence. sueh
damages, under the evidence in this
case, could result only from gross negli-
gence in the operation of the engine. AS
to the rule defining the duties of the
master and servant in regard to the labor
10 De peElOEuou, see ~ Texas, l3O, %
Texas, 200. Under the evidence this rule
does not apply. The purpose for which
the engine was being operated was to
send 1t to the shop for repairs, that il
might be rendered safe for its legitimate
work. This being done in proper, usual
and ordinary manner, the company cannot
be held liable in exemplary. The charge
asked, submitting this phase should
have been given. On actual damages, the
court gave the identical charge which, in
53 Texas, $40, was held an error. Under
appropriate pleading and instruction the
jury should be required to respond in
separate verdicts 10 the issues of both ac-
tual and exemplary damages. Reversed
and remanded-Bonner,J j.
III. & t. c. Railway VS., Barragen ap-
peal from - county.-It is shown BY
the evidence OF the plaintiff himself that
he knew OF three defects IN some of the
cars, because of which he was injured
Sc: the loss of ''spring draw head
and bumpers, but that at the time Of
coupling the cars, in which attempt be
was injured, he did not know one oil
them. The moving car was the one from
which necessary appliances had been