Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-29
phase OF the case different judgment
should have been given. Affirmed.
,es-.s.... - xfytttta ~

L
should have been given Affirmed
Opinion BY While. G. j.
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. VS.. Rober,
+. Best, appeal from Fannin. The priu.
ciplc which imposes upon q railroad com.
pany the duty OF keeping In safe condition
It's premises for the use of friend of a
passenger, aiding him TO enter or leave
the train, Is well established COS Tex. and
cases cited). The plaintiff IN this case
was not trespasser or an idler He was
there by appointment with one supposed
to be on the train, with the view OF be.
coming himself passenger II the an.
pointnent was met. If he acted In good
faith and not upon pretense, he had the
right to be upon the platform and there
receive the protection Of ordinary care
The jury were instructed that II the
plaintiff know the platform was defective.
bnt 1t was necessary for him to use the
defective part, he would be entitled 10 re-
cover. The correct test of the liability OF
plaintiff TO the charge Of contrlbntorv
negligence was whether prudent per.
son, in the same situation and with
the knowledge possessed by plaintiff.
would have done what he did. He
might have the right to do what
II the word necessary was used In the
sense Of "important,n then he might be
guilty Of contributory negligence IN going
over that part Of the platform, whether
necessary ornot. In the real meaning Of
the WORD the evidence does not sustain
the verdict under the charge. In any
other meaning the charge does not pre-
sent the law OF the case. Beach on Con.
Neg 25s; Note TO AZ Am. Rep. p. 74t.
Reversed and remanded Robertson, j.
Martin Brown c o. Va. WaiDscot ct. al,
Appeal from Montague. There Is moth
iug ia the record TO show that the Jury
were compelled TO deliberate as to their
verdict for any length Of time. 1t was
not stated In the motion for new trial,
but the motion may have been overruled
as to this ground, because it was not in
accordance with the facts. II this is error
therefore, which 10 ordinarily would not
be, there is nothing to show that the
court forced the jury TO remain together
against their wish.
The record does not show
that the special charges were
given after the Jury had retired and taken
the case; and II II did, 1t is not shown
that any exceptions were taken below to
hhAo ANVIL VI NbN SOtAbs hlhllhtNs
Opinion by Willie, G, j.
Broad ct al. vs.. City Of Paris, appeal
from Lamar. The bond sued on Is under
art. 965 X. s., to secure the general rev.
enues of the city. The treasurer OF the
city had given no bond such as the law
prescribed for the security of the "school
fund" The default was partly of rev.
enue and partly OF school funds, and
fhnra ~ both q
against the sureties held, that constru-
ing together the laws requiring the two
bonds 1t is clear that the sureSies on the
general bond cannot be made liable for
defalcation in the special fund.- New.
429. 10 ind. IN. CO 229.
The view taken by the court be-
low that the report of the officer was
prima facie and not conclusive evidence
against the sureties is. sustained by the
weight of authority and supported by the
better reason. Note to 81 Am. Rep. 2S4;
Wharton Ev. Sec. 1919. Reversed and
remanded. Robertson, j.
Stroud ct al. VS.. Palmer ct al. appeal
from Travis. The only assignment is
that the jury failed to find the value OF
improvements and rents. To sustain
this assignment 1t should have been made
To appear that the uncontradicted EVIL
dence showed that improvements had
been made, or that the jury had disre-
garded the great preponderance OF evil
dence to that effect. The only statement
in the brief is that there "was evidence
introduced thereon" To determine
whether there was error here, we should
be compelled TO toll through thlrty-two
pages OF facts, and this TO do that which
the rules require shall be done by coun-
sell Affirmed. opinion by Willie, c. j..