Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-25

from Inc sleeping-car at night while |
appellant was asleep In one Of the
berths which he had rented. In add.
ton TO the general denial, the appellee
pleaded In substance that 1t was not q
common carrier or an insurer of the
lives or baggage Of passengers. While |
1t is well settled that sleeping
car companies are TO be regarded |
as neither inn.keepers nor conf |
mon carriers, nor subject to the oner-
GUS liabilities of either with respect to |
the property Of those enjoying their
accommodations, 1t is equally we'll set
tied that 1t Is their duly to exercise |
or iinary care for the security of valua.
bies, and what is ordinary care must
be measured with reference TO the
danger reasonably 10 be apprehended.
Such danger is greater at night while
the passenger ia asleep than In the
day time when awake. The invita-
ton TO make use of the berth
carries with it an invitation to sleep,
and an implied agreement 20 take rea-
Sensible care Of the guests effects while
asleep. A failure to use ordinary care
proportonate TO the danger reasonably
TO be apprehended would be negli
gence which would ordinarily render
such company liable for the loss of
the passengers property. 1homp
Car. OF pas. sec. 90 p 80; Is Am, and
Eng. Ry. cases, 321. Appellants right
to recover in this case depends upon
the absence Of ordinary care on the
part of the appellee, and 1t devolved
upon him TO snow by evidence the
want OF such ordinary care. In this
case the appellant failed to show by
evidence the want of such care on the
part OF the company. In the absence
OF any law defining the acts and omis-
slons which constitute negligence In
given case, IL Is q fact TO be found by
the jury ON evidence, and 1t is error
for the court In such case to instruct
the jury that certain acts or omissions
constitute negligence. Affirmed.
Railway Company vs. Lowe, from
Ellis county. The fire by which the
appellants rick Of hay was destroyed
was communicated by grass on the
appellants right of way fired by
sparks escaping from it's engine. Held,
that IL is negligence in railway COM
pany TO leave grass and other com-
bustibles where they are peculiarly
likely to take fire by falling sparks and
Goals. 1t is not coatributory negli-
| ROuCt III u utRubOIllh liiAAl OMKtA W
! leave grass and other combustibles on
his premises near the road /; the obllga-
ton OF course TO prevent fires not rest
ing upon him but upon the company.
| Cooley on Govt's, 500 w. and w
Con. Rep, sec. ga IL was not TO adj
nit evidence of one sale of hay near
where thst OF appellee was burned,
nor the opinion of witnesses rs TO the
/ Leo, - In hnN trt.l
opinion OF the community az TO the
ket for the article where 1t was
destroyed, and hence, this character
of evidence was admissible TO establish
the intrinsic value of the hay.
Affirmed.
Iabells vs. Everheart, from Grayson
county. The principal question il the
correctness OF the action of the court
In Diminishing the appeal from the jus.
tice's court because Of defects Ia the
affidavit fOrma pauperis In lieu of an
appeal bond in the Justices court. The
JUSTICES court adjourned on September
70, and the affidavit yas fled on Sep.
tember ~, thereafter The rule Is that
IL the affidavit Is made before some
officer other than the county Judge
and when not made before the court
in session, trying the case, it must bC
presented after IL is made to the coun
ty Judge, and he must certify that The
facts required to be verified by the afii
davit had been proved before him
When 81 JUSTICES court adjourns fo
the term, the justice ceases TO be Z
court before whom such proof can bt
made. II he be notory public as wei
as Justice then perhaps such affidavit
might be made before him AS notary
but even In such case such affidavit
would be insufficient unless afterward
presented 20 and certified by the coun
! ty Judge. In this case IL does not ap
, pear that the justice before whom th
affidavit WAS made was notary and
, is not certified by the county Judge
In Diminishing the appeal the court be
/ low did not err. Affirmed
Sansing VS.. Risinger, from Lama
: cpunty. Appellant rented land to +
who was to pay one-fourth Of the Gro
g raised as rent. p. engaged one Il. I
0 assist in cutivating the land, AM
/. agreed with II. to give him ten acres &
the cotton, he, L. TO pay the rent du
/ on the ten acres. IFS ten acres wa
, designated by agreement between hill
+ and p, after the cotton was laid by.
4 paid appellant all the rent save this
: due on the ten ceres set apart TO II. I
r sold the ten acres to appellee, and 81
1 pellee took possession. Appellant sue
4 his tenant i. for the rent due on Tia
D ten acres, and seizad the cotton grow
/. thereon by distress warrant. The co
q ton was sold and applied TO his deb
e Appellee brought this suit to recov'
a OF appellant value Of the cotton an
o damages, and recovered the value
/, the cotton and costs. II W,
s claimed by appellee that appe
3 liant had no right TO take II
L cotton OF the sub-tenant 70 pay II
n rent due by the tenant, and as pro-
|. osition OF law this Ia correct. 2 Col
Rep. 70. But the evidence fails
!. show 4. to have been subtle lant. q
It the contrary, the ten acres OF coitoi
q being assigned TO him after the matur
N ty of the crop, he was the assignee
e that much Of the crop. There is a VIC
v distinction between the assignee OF
! lease and sub-tenant. The form'
70 becomes personally liable 10 the liant
i. lord fnr All of the cOven8nts aud cond