Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-29
RpON VS.. BR0ILES Ell AL.
"A aud Remanded by the Supreme
OOurt-synopsis of the
Case.
4 ~, Of the Opinion Of the Judges
4 4 .hs Supreme Court Upon
the Subject.

,nublish below the full text OF
N.,inion Of the supreme court in
= ~ OF w. A. Aaron VS.. II. S
\ ct 81. The case below was de-
d kln favor Of defendants, who Ger.
Y I, made good fight.
Y ,nns wife and child were removed
heir home to the pest-house by
/, nsrd OF health On account of the
ID having smallpox, against the
Y y and protests of the father and
N.Y.. The mother and child both
\ n the Iest-house and Aaron sued
b hove parties for SOS, 700 for their
There is also like suit against
M for the same amount.
case has been watched with
. interest by the public as solving
,uestiop Of the rights Of officers to
IA the ssnctity of mans home.
on the other hand the duty of the
srs to remove cases liable to inocu-
the community with infectious
sse.
&ah sides claim the advantage, and
IA the decision we may expect to
lea very interesting end closely
listed case.
&In our opinion there is no merit In
int and second assignments of
b. The right of the city council of
n Worth, acting under legislative
Nhority, 10 enact al d 10 enforce the
XInsnce which was introduced in
hence is not to be questioned.
h. Stats art, 46S; Cooley Con.
Z a ed, p. 729, art. 2; Dill. Nun.
~, sec. 80.
Hlfthe continuance of Mrs. Aaron
her child in the city was incom-
/ &ble with the safety OF the people
HE city, we have no doubt that
Bcity authorities might move them.
we have rs little doubt that the
and those to whom was intrusted
,Ximportant duty, were bound to
Re every reasonable provision for
safety of those unfortunate persons.
Think, therefore, that there was
F in the charge of the court.
In the first place the jury were told
In order to recovery the removal
kt have been not only wrongful but
Fhout authority of law. Now, in
opinion, 1t might have been en-
ely lawful and right to remove the
her and child, and yet the thing
b have been done in such way as
nflict upon them the greatest posi-.
Z Injury. In the next place the jury
told that If those who removed the
Their and child were acting under
authority of law, then, in order Ia
against them, they must have act.
maliciously, willfully and oppres
Ey, or with gross negligence. This,
think, was error.
'EThe bailee OF the most common
fperty is,under some circumstances,
uired to use the highest degree oil
IL, IL the defendants had taken
session of the plaintiffs mule OF
fse, 70 be used for the benefit of the
n, the law would have exacted OF
~ the highest degree of care.
Waite's Ac. and Def, p. 497 Csn
pe that when, for the benefit OF the
its officers take possession of a
~ wife and child, the law will
No the custodians, You must not
imal C. toward the sufferers, but
That is required OF you is that you
llnot be guilty of gross negligence
think not.
HHis true that the court charged
tit there was malice or gross neg.
snee the jury might award exem-
~ damages, but the drift OF the
ige seemed TO be that unless there
'malice, oppression or gross negli-
zee there could be no finding at all
Ilst the defendants. The statute
ndes that An action for actual
ages on account of injuries causing
Death of any person, may be
aght in the following cases: q
When the death of any person is
xd by the wrongful act, negli-
y unskillfuluess. or default Of
gaer.' Rev. Stats, art. 1893.
htlcle 290l, Revised Statutes, pro-
4 that when the death is caused
ne willful act or omission, or gross
agence of the defendant, eXempla-
swell as actual damages may be
gefed.'
The defendants caused the re-
hof the plaintiffs wife and child
aoat the care and precaution which
II gicumstances required, and If the
M resulted therefrom. then, in
III eNnlon, they are responsible. aud
act that they were city officers,
pacing under a city ordinance,
not shield them. r. Thompson
&Nte, S23; Story on agency, sec.
sAd cas- e. cited Nowellvs. Wright,
n, 1856
Wsre also of opinion that the
X Ky given at the request of the de.
Ants was erroneous. The jury
h told that the board of health,
v acting under the city ordinance
eVislng plans to protect the city
Must disease, were acting in a judi
n capacity and were not responsible
arors and mistakes of Judgment.
II = was nothing judicial in the act
#uioVlng this woman aud child,
me question il not whether the
4, y was wise or unwise, but whether
was a wrong done in one of the
nv Oh It's execution.
= smother part OF the ssme charge
IVY were told that 1t was thC
VI the city to provide q pest
n employ physicians and nurses
lake all necessary arrangements
treatment, protection and com
me patients in the pest-house
Il IA under their control, and tina
eiehdants would not be liable fol
Jury resulting TO plaintiff wifi