Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-28

TICKET and takes his seat in he on, ms
preparatory to his journey, there Il = !,
iiipileo agreement on the part of tbe
ihi,roaG TO convey him 10 his Journeys
ehu. The consideration of this aurse.
n lmcut Is the price paid for the ticket.
rue company becomes bound TO use
sucn care as shall secure the saicty of
.nc passenger. In case of injury with
out fault of the passenger, n prima
iacie case arises against the company.
ana ltxes upon IL the burden of show,
ing the injury to have resulted from
causes IL could not control. Not hav-
ing paid fare, but being ON the cars to
OBTAIN transportation free. the passen.
ger In this case could not demand tho
same care as In other cases. and ~
most could claim damages only for In
territorial injury. Affirmed OH report
OF Delany, commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph Company
VS.. Hetson, from Parker county. Mo.
uon 10 suppress dispositions not being
presented until after both parties an.
nounced on merits, the objections
must be considered to have been
waived. He who acts by another
acts by himself" wherefore, the acts
Oh me cashier must be held to be the
acts OF the bank. Telegraph COM
panies may, by express contract,
or proper rules and regulations,
printed notice or otherwise, brought
to the knowledge of patrons, by Inn
piled contract limit their liability for
delays or errors in the transmission
ana delivery Of messages, unless such
occurred by misconduct, fraud or want
OF due care on tho company's part.
When the company relies upon such
contract the burden is upon IL to estab-
fish the same. The original message
being lost, appellant relied upon oral
evidence TO establish the con-
ditions and limitations on which 1t was
sent. If the evidence Oh the issue was
sufficient to sustain verdict la fay, r
OF the company, then the court should
have submitted the issue by appropri-
ate instructions IN which the legal
effect of such limitations should be
made known TO the jury. Charge that
II the jury believed that the contract
stipulated that the company should
not be liable unless the message was
repeated or claim for damage presented
within specified time would not pre-
sent that issue properly. Affirmed on
the report of Watts, commissioner.
Houston& Texas Central Railway vs..
Leaky, from Grayson county. With
one exception this appeal involves the
same questions involved in the case
OF the II. ( T. g. R'y VS.. Boozer, supra.
IL Is claimed that the court erred in
charging that the failure to ring the
bell or sound the whistle was negli-
gence. When moving train is about
passing public crossing, the statute
requires the bell TO be rung or whistle
blown for distance of eighty rods.
Whether or not the engine in this case
crossed a street is fact upon which
there was conflict of evidence. 1.-THE
engine went upon the crossing, the
question of negligence is one oflaw-ii
not, one of fact. But the statute re-
feIred TO does not apply TO n switch
engine operating in yard where
there is no purpose TO go upon cross
ing. Reversed and remanded apon
report OF Watts, commissioner.
Peyton ct al. w. Leonard, from Dial.
las county. AS a fact the Judgment
shows that the court found that the
note was in part payment of the pur
chase money of the land, and upon II
foreclosed the lien. Appellant, testi
flying, denied that such was fact. Or
the other hand the conveyance to APP
pellant recites the note as part consid
Grafton therefor. Appellant and VIII,
gave in part payment for the property
against which foreclosure was sough
the furniture In certain hotel. l
TRANSFERRED that there was an existing
lien for 5000 on the furniture. Tn
note was given to compensate for tn
diminished value of the furnitur
caused by the lien. Held, that tn
finding and judgment of the court wa
correct. Affirmed on report of DE
lany, commissioner.
Fort Worth q Denver Railway vs
Dabneys, from Wise county. Whei
the record fails to show action of tn,
court upon general demurrer, 1t will
not be considered unless the objection
is fundamental. When objection I,
evidence is general, and no grounds
assigned, the rule is that If such evi
dence would tend to prove any of TIA,
facts put in issue by the pleadings
then 1t ought to be admitted. The
rule does not cover the evidence ad
mitted over general objection In thii
case. The remaining objection Is tina
the evidence does not sustain tn,
Judgment. But the objection Is no
sustained by the record. The evi
dence is ample. Affirmed, on repor
of Watts, commissioner.
Bumpass VS.. Spencer at al, from
Dallas county. The suit was brought
in June, 1870. The statute In force a
that time authorized writ Of sequestra
ton in suit to foreclose mortgage o
enforce lien on land. That the cour
erred in its ruling upon C.'s motion t,
transfer the cause to tie federal court
it il sufficient to answer that G. ha
not appealed. Recital in an agreemen
that deed for land had been made b,
appellant to appellses did not estop TIN
latter from showing, as they al
legged, that the deed was not in fac
executed. Upon conflict OF evidenc
as to whether or not
deed was actually executed
and delivered, there was conflict o
evidence which was decided unde
proper instructions againstappellants
Under such circumstances appellee
had election to sue for purchas
money, ii having been paid, or b
rescind contract Motion OF appeiian
TO dismiss petition OF intervenors wa
sustained. Having interviewed. b.
permission of the court, the petition
was subject to dismissal, ifinIproper a
u party to the suit, but suit dismissa
was not final adjudication OF inter
venor's rights. Affirmed on report Q
Watts, commissioner.