Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-08
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered at the
. Austin Sitting Of the su-
preme Court
Made Up From the Full and Official Re-
port Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered,
The Damage Suit Of the T, g. P. Rail.
way Company vs.. Curry from Tar
rant County Affirmed,
Compiled for The Gazette.

Compiled for The Gazette.
Texas d Pacific Railway Company |
We. Curry from Tarrant county. Petit |
ton In suit for damages for injuries In |
fllcted by the appellants trains, alleged |
the injuries, but did not allege mental
and physical pain and suffering. The
evidence showing the injuries to have
resulted from the appellants negli-
gence as charged, the court charged in
substance that the jury were author
lied, in estimating damages, to take
into consideration, II the testimony
showed any. the mental and physical
pain and suffering, the nature, extent
and probable duration of the injury,
and impaired capacity to earn money,
etc, of the appellee. 1t Is objected to
the charge that II was erroneous in the
absence of pleadings setting up men
tai suffering. The objection is not
well taken. For sufficient rule Of
pleading, applicable TO such cases ae
this, and to let in proof OF damages,
see sutherland on Dam, 426, and 3
Sedgw. on Dam, COG. The rule, how
ever, is satisfied when, from the facts
stated, the law infers other fact or
facts, for Whatsoever the law infers
from given state of facts the adverse
party is presumed to know, and must
take notice whether specially pleaded
or not From the injuries here proved
the lawwill infer both physical and
mental suffering. There was no error
In refusing to permit the witness Il. to
testify. His testimony was known TO
appellant, and he was not offered UNI
til the counsel for plaintiff was max.
| T.. Ii, ala
Fort Worth e. Denver Railway COM
pany VS.. Barefoot ct AL, from Clay
county. The charge of the court in
this case upon the measure of damages
is substantially the same as that in the
case OF the San Antonio Il East Texas
Railway company va. Joachim, SIS
Texas 457 ct seq and is held, for the
same reasons, erroneous. In that case
I it was decided that in suits Of this
> character, where trespass and willful
injury to real estate, growing crops
hay, growing grass, etc, Is alleged
that the party complaining, on proper
, proof, is entitled to such damages as
are ordinarily recoverable in an action
of trespsss. 1t was also said that the
charge OF the court in that case, which
merely announced to the jury; thu
+ general principle that the plain
I tiff should recover his &C
{ tual damages, was Objectionable
. The same doctrine was laid down IL
9 60 Tex. POI ct seq and it was declared
that in this class Of suits the tru
measure of damages is the value OF tn
nroperty destroyed at the time of 1t
destruction. The evidence introduces
. i'm this case to prove the number @
acres of land despoiled Of grass wa
not satisfactory. None of the witnesse
e had ever measured the land, or al
+ companied q surveyor who had; non
were civil engineers or surveyors, no
!. had they In any manner attempted
/. commute for themselves the number
G acres. While proof of actual surve
q was not indispensable, yet witnesse!
e to be effective, should show then
selves in some wise competent to test
~. The opinions Of witnesses, unsul
y ported by proof OF the quantity an
~ market value OF the grass destroyet
n and their bare conjectures
:, to the amount of damages sustaine
n. by appellees does not constitute ev
dence on these points. All the rae
as to the value of the grass VINE
DESTROYED, and the damage sustaine'
o. should be detailed in evidence. VIM
;. IL Is general rule that witnesses, e.
" cept experts, must TESTIFY only as
facts within their knowledge, y
as where the existence OF iact, Use
testified to, is firmly impressed
&c the minds OF the witnesses, put u
10 details, ETC., are not fully remembers
he can state his recollection OF the IA
IN (see citations supra. The eVl1eh
tracing the first fire TO the appehan
is ample, but that with regard 10 q
to last two, Is not so satisfactory. II
versed and remanded.
The Harrison Machine Works '
- Relger. from Tarrant county. Il
/. III and the appellee executed to Ht
III rison & Co. two promissory not'
each for $700, one payable January
1879. and the other January l, lSS
and each containing an agreement
=" the effect that o failure to pay tn
note when due should mature DO
notes, This suit was commenced
these two notes more than four yea
after the maturity OF the one first IA
co ing due, and the statute of limitati'
90 being pleaded, the question Is, W
so suit on the last note barred? That =
- effect OF the agreement was 10 authori
on enit and give q right OF action up
en-. the last note ut the same time that
.eh could be commenced upon the II
''e' cannot be doubt d. By the expr'
--- terms OF the statute of Limitation.
commenced to run from the time !
cause OF action accrued. IL Is imn
terial from what cause a note becon
a due, so far as the right of the holder
enforce il by suit is concerned. IL
lows that the maker can, in the
RON case rs in the other, avail himself
~ any failure TO sue in the period
M limitation. Limitation was "
MT pleaded as against both notes.
firmed.
I'VE Conner We. Mclean, from Grays
led county. This was an action OF tresp
Ter 10 try title instituted by appel
Igh against appellant, the dispute bel
Of tie true locality on the ground OF
ort north boundary line between the
adjoining sections SO and A Of the u
al. versify leagues. numbers l, II, 10
DOL rs. 1t may be proper to remark
- ..a..a,t that neither the briefs