The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-04-24

communicated to the grass on appelieeYs
land, ana from thence to his rick OF hay,
which IL consumed. He sued appellant
Tor the value of the hay and recovered
damages therefor. Held: 1t was
not error to admit evidence of
one sale OF hay near where
that OF appellee was burned, nor the
opinion of witness as to the value OF the
hay, nor the general opinion of the COM
munity AS to The value OF the hay.
There was no market for the article al
the place where IL was destroyed, and,
sucn being the case, this character OF |
evidence was admissible to assist the |
Judge trying the case In arriving at a |
correct estimate of the intrinsic value |
OF the eay. CIV. Il w. Con. Rep. Secs. |
| l4h ol3, l,392; AbbOtt's Trial Evidence, |
3OL 3 sutherland on Damages, 375), |
IN THIS case, tine evidence as TO the
Yelue Of the hay was amply sufficient to
warrant tho Judgment. 1t is negligence
IN rMltoad company to allow grass
and other cOmbustibl6s lying along its
! track, when they are peculiarly liable
90 take fire by falling sparks or coal.
10 is not contrlbutOry negligence in a
ueighboring landowner Is leave grass
and other combustibles on his premises
near the road, The obligation Of care
Ia prevent fires reste1 not upon him,
but upon the company. Cooley on
"a Is, 5s2; W n W Con. Rep. Sec. 65i;
Il. r. o.. VS. Cnaise, II; Kan. AZ; X. r..
Co. VS.. MISSIONER, Il Neb., 26S; l Thomp.
on Neg. p. p, l62, l63, ct seq, Affirmed.
ES parte j. g, Duly; from Limestone
county. Hurt, j. Application Of appel
liant iOr reduction OF bail, charged with
theft from 5ae person. Hold: Ia view
of the me8gerness of the criminative
facts the bail g excessive. The came is
reduced to $3.50 and the sheriff of Lime
stone county ordered TO release APP
pellant upon his executing good and
, suhicient bond IN that amount.
Paris Gaslight company vs.. M, ID.
. MclIarn; from Lamar county. Wilson,
Suit for $40, the value of a mule
, which mad been injured and rendered
| worthless by stopping in ditch which
appellant mad dug across public
: street in Paris. Held: A person OF
4 corporation having tho consent OF the
a proper public authorities 10 make exca,
< Yatlons along and across public streets
!, and highways, who exercise such priv
s leges in manner consistent with thu
@ customary use of the way for priyat,
u purposes, and who observes degree o
d care proportionate to the danger, and 4
K chargable with no fault cannot be hole
i responsibleiof accidental injuries.
y Tho measure of care against acciden
n bility is that which an ordinarily pru
dent aud cautious person would use,
his own interest were TO be affected, an
s. the whele risk were his own. A failur
. TO use this degree Of care constitute
at negligence.
n The burden ofproving this negligeuc
rests upon the party assortingit 10 eXis
OF and its existence Is question OF fact t
be determined by the jury.
IA Where u corporation receives and a.
al cepts work done by a contractor, if II
jury results TO one through defects,Ii
M this work the corporation alone is liabl
Nj. If property is left in a dangerous CO.
nd diJion 70 pedestrians and others it is IL
ra duty OF the owner TO protect from 1
jury in some way those passing on d
IVA street until the property was In sa
cd condition, and evidence that par
~ who has dug dangerous ditch on u
> highway had not erected any dang
signals thereon, is relevant az teudn
to show negligence on the part Of su
nj owner.
RS, The miss.spelling of the word plain
1T in verdict does not vitiate
an whore the intention of the Jury is maj
al fest to find for the plaintiif. Afiirme
&C. Missouri Pacific railroad compai
on VS.. John II. Marten; from Tara
.,, county. Wilson !. In suit for In
~ ries 10 passenger on a railroad trai
=, n witness W as asked, "whether or I
.a the force Of the returning train
~ couple with yOnr car, Che one In viii
sh he wasl, was of usual fOrcen and q
~ sWered that "tho force of the Gomez
~ sion Oi the train and cahoose, when COZ
70 ling TO the latter was very unusl
ana unnecessary" Held. Tho qu
ton did not call for the moro opini
or conclusion OF the witness, and
- not elicit m answer which was witt
no. tne general rule excluding Opinion
his But II IL did IL came within the exc
inc ton rendering admissible the opinI
ora witness, as to matters with viii
leI no is specially acquainted, Jut win
ecu cannot Ae specially described.
IS' Charges OF the court to the Jury
Il regarded as excepted TO, bug this q,
or not relieve party from tho duty OF
ma guessing additional instructions
OF tnose given by the court are not (
enough. Failing 10 request addition
instructions, he cannot complain in tl
Al, court that the charge did not pres
y ~ the whole law OF the case. Affirmed.
ldi- T. II. Strong VS.. the state; from CO
tai. man county. Hurt J. Where
- records hayo been lost or destroy
e9eh the state cannot substitute the same
lsn as TO show the existence OF the requil
80 tntllto III leHAlu 10 ANt personal---very.
cen an indictment by parole evidence of
'ole exis teuce ei the entries. 10 must
uo' done strictly IN accordance with a
1916, 477, li7S lI70, liSO, Roy. Stats.
The contents of tho record Of the st
treasurers Office may he proven by
witness who Is familiar with the bl
ness OF the office and has examined
.o,, books with Wow Oi ascertaining
W" facts.
In Where delendent is on trial for emil
On a cling money given him 10 be sent to
yaI,, state treasurer and no showed that
moi had so sent tho money and had the
rhIs ceipt, the rule Is that when the .defeu
aga. are so extrinsic as to require In q
IN, support a preponderanCe OF proof as
ar. tinguished irUm defenoes rs TO which
Tho will be sufficient for an ncquittal to TIL
We, We a reasonable doubt on the case of
oan' prosecution, the burden is on the
~ PENDANT; but Ii the state has only m
=. prima facie case, not showing the x
'ar, OF defendant beyond any reasons
" doubt the failure of defendant To 81
Tho, his innocence when il is in his power
;ns s' do so, does not lend additional proba
ne force 10 the criminatlve facts of
.aan prosecution. The proof however m
go, clearly show defendants ability to IN
,,ilv the required proof. Reversed and
.siiy, manded.
, Of -,
law houston NoNH Nu'os'
Sls, Houston, April S.-,SpeciaLl-