Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-28


can avail himself " This provision " IA
ycrsIty, Nashville, Tom, arrived home
this evening. Ills return was hastchcl
! on account ~ The dangerous Illness O
bis father, lley. j, h Noble.
law without any order of court Affirmed
opinion by Wlllie,C.J
HAYS 81 at. VI, Il, A. sawyer, appca
from Harris. " was not error 10 rcfus,
Ia 1ualiiy the charge upon the subject d
fraudulent sale OF property, NJ 10 lns,ruc
the Jury nthat nlihOtul the goods ina,
lhave been purchased IN payment Of
bona ode debt, yet the value " The good,
taken should have been reasonably pro
porllonal to the debt paid,n whore thcr,
was no evidence tending 20 shoy that IN,
goods taken were OF moro value than The
debt cancelled.
Those who arr not creditors Of The
vendor NJ the time Of the sale of his goods
cannot be dofraudcd by The transaction
and such sale cannot DO disturbed for The
payment Of bscquontlycontrnctod
affirmed. Opinion by Willie, CD.
Gnli Colorado s. Santa 10 Railway
Company VI. Eugene wallon, appeal from
llurcson Suit by Wallcn 70 recover
damages Tor Injuries 90 his wife, who,
with himself, was passenger upon de.
| icndant'H train Something being wrong
with one OF The truck wheels the train
was halted on tho road at n place where
| there wns neither u station, no switch
While the train was standing thus, u
| freight train approached from the rear aud
panic cnsuod. IN jumping from the
rear coach 10 the ground plaintiffs wife
was seriously Injured. There was
judgement for plaintiff Hold tho lie
PENDANT neither caused nor contributed 10
tho Injury, unless 10 allowed the freight
train TO come 10 close or so rapidly 10.
ward the other train as 20 brighten the
passengers II does not appear from
the evidence that q yluglc one
of those who lcnpcd from the
coach, except the plalptii, saw the freight
traln coming, When the plaintiff saw
II II was three or four hundred yards
owny, and, AZ he says, appeared TO he
moving rapidly. lie docs not state that
hu supposed from what he saw that there
would be u collision No one left the
train upon bis own perception
OF dnnRori but, upon the
contrary, those who used their senses
fcItno alarm and remained in the car,
Whatever may have been the speed OF tho
coming train II was slowed 10 Il full sion
w lNlhb ivy YNINH ubIH lHN IlHHhCHgef
car, There was, therefore, no actual
dagger The ovid nee shows no cause
Tor the panic, except rolnark made
by some one that "thc freight
train Is upon ug." No wit.
ness ascrlbcs this remark TO any agent
or employee Of The company, and there Is
some positive testimony that twas made
by drummer, (who II 4, feared escaped
killing Tho plaintiffs wife may have
done only what II prudent person would
have done under the circumstances, hut
SIN the defendant Is not shown to he
liable for the injury.
The trial Judges duty h not confined
TO advising tho jury Of The law Of tho case.
II The testimony docs not sustain the
finding llo verdict should be Nct aside.
Remarks by counsel to the effect that
che railroad company Is u corporation
without soul or conscience, but notwilll.
standing this they have cot
biz pocket, aud this you cnn
reach II you fail 10 do IL
now you may mover again have the Oppor.
tuuliN. The employees OF company viii
walk through tho train aud talk 30 pas.
songets Ike puppies, 50 while you have
u chance tonUh thOm the lesson TINT they
cannot be reckless with 10 valuable Il
ihlngas human me-" were improper.
koyorscd and rcmnnded Opinion by
Robertson, i.