Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-16
COURT DECISIONS.
laAlvrSros rrns, 1851


snpreme Court,
Randlc ct al. ~. Carlisle From For
Bend county. Opinion OF justice
titayton. Tho assignments Of crrDl
falling 10 comply with the statute
regulating Tint subject, either IN letter
or spirit. the court can not be consid
cred, and IN looking up the record w,
fail 10 find any error Of law apparent
Of record. and the Judgment must b,
affirmed. The first assignment reads
1.-The court erred IN refusing to give
the charges asked by the plaintiff
The second assignment M "Tbt
court erred ia It's charge 10 the Jury,
because the charges given were
only not the law, but were calculated
30 mslead the jury aud portion 81
them are direct commentaries upon
Che weight Of evidence The third
assignment Of error IL that nthc ludg-
ncnt Is contrary 10 the law and the
evidence The fourth assignment
reads "'rhe court erred IN refusing
plaintiff u new trinl." Revised Stat
tites, article 1897 rule supreme court,
20, "a, ~, -, rs and a. j Affirmed
Ross w. McGowan ct al.--Fron San
.Iacjnto county. Opinion on rebear-
ing by Chief Justice Willie. In de-
Gliding this case before the statement
~ facts was disregurdcd, because IL
was mike up, signed and filed after
the term Of the court at which the
ense was tried without an order pre-
vionsly entered allowing II 10 he done,
Appellant now files, with his motion
aor rebearing, O duly certified order OF
tho clerk Of the lower court stating
TINT such nn order was given and duly
entered Of record, but inadvertently
omitted from the record Held, after
a ci.llae il once submitted upon "A tran
script, supposed 10 be correct, ns the
parties have made no objection 10 II,
and we have decided the case upon
such transcript, we can not undertake
40 re'cxnnine such a cnuse because the
counsel for either party discover Is de-
feet Ia the transcript which, II sup
piled, might probably lead us 10 n diff
fercnt conclusion To prevent any
further applications Of this character,
after the record IL In our hands for de-
eision, this decision IL now put In
writing, md the rule laid down In II
will hereafter be rlgldly enforced. NO
ton for rellearing refused.
Tcxne and New Orleans Railway
Company W. Robinson From Liberty
county. Opinionb by Willie G. j. The
faets Of this ease bring IL fully within
The principles laid down Ia the case Of
Galveston, Harrisburg and san An
aonlo railway Va. Tempe. & Texas
Law Review, ll7.l IL was there held
that AN empIoyc, who, after having an
opportunity OF becoming acquainted
with the risks of his situation volnn-
tarily accepts them, and who Is injur-
ed while voluntarily nj work In place
che dangers nf which he has the same
means of Knowing ns his employer,
can notrecoyer damages for such IN
Jurles. The rule prcsupposcs, Of course,
that the risks must he pHtent and that
the eiuploye has continued In the SER
vice Without objections or protest, and
without being induced by the cm-
ployer 10 believe that there was no
real danger, or That u change would be
made 20 remedy the hazards ot the
situation. II Is not necessary 10 defeat
the servants recovery that the master
should be ignorant Of the danger. Az
IL must bc patent, the rule presuppoAcs
tllat II viii bo as well known to the
one ms to the other. AS the master In
exonerated when no promise or In.
dueemcnt w held out by him to the
the dangerous service, he certainly
cannot be held liable when nothing OF
that sort Il shown, upon his mere fail
tle To remedy the cailsca which
render the employment hazardous.
Reversed and remnndcd
Blame W., Meyor-@taller county.
opinion on rehenrnp by Justice West.
a mere allegation that the sale for
taxes would east u cloud upon ap-
pclinnte title would not of itself Justify
the court In interfering by the as-
nnce of a writ of injunction Ia prohibit
she collection of the entire tax, claim
sd; when II does not appear That tho
whole tax is illegal The party must
show that he himself IL not II, fault
III the appellant wish To contest the
validity of the school tax, he should
have paid the nj valorem and occupa-
tioh taxes that were justly due the
corporation. Unless he pays the taxes
which are uat charges against his
property, he cannot complain That u
cpurt of equity refuses 10 hear him or
grant him relief ga Texas, go, AZ
TeSas, -, The total amount !nvolv-
cd being S2l, II Ia doubtful under the
ti,ets whether case wns disclosed that
would authorize the intcrposition OF
vhc district court throughi the instru-
mentally ofA writ OF Injunction, [25
Texas, i7li 80 Texas, S06. We do not
Anubt the correctness OF tho judgement
heretofore rendered, I63 Texas, 2SS;
al Texas, As7; 70 Texaa a4s; - Texas
aaN; Is Texas, ilS, $50, Rehcarins
refused.