Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-02

While this WAS an onerous agreement or
the part OF appellee, he made II and must
abide by it. TIE refusal of the charge
WAS error.
The court instructed the jury thst II
the cattle were not counted when
tsken out OF the pasture, for
he purpose OF asertaining the
amount of rent due for the pasture, and
that if they should d nd that the failure to
count was the voluntary act of either
Of defendants, and unless the evidence
otherwise shows the SEXUAL number
turned out, that they would estimate the
number turned cut ST the highest nun.
Der shown to have been placed in thu
pasture. App :llants excepted to this
charge. Held: error. The j1ry should
have been left 70 determine rom all cir
to say what the number turned out really
was. 3 Appellants asked wit
ness the condition Of the fence around
the pasture; also what number Of cat
tie escaped from the pasture. Both these
q1estions were OH scted to and he AZ
swers were suppressed. Held Both the
questions snd answers were adm .ssible.
1t Yves error in the court to refuse to
let Clampitt answer the question IS to
whether appellee agreed to keep the fer ce
in good repair. Reversed and remsnded
Cellord, j.
international and Great Northern Rsil.
way Company vs.. S. S. Moody; appeal
fre N B xsr. Suit by appellee to recover
for damages for iriary and partisI de-
g.! uction OF carload OF fruit
and ornamental trees, same being
caused by the burning of appel
lent compsny's depot a. Austin, Tex
l. The doctrine is now we'll established In
this state that in the .bsence CT authority
conferred oy statute, one railroad com
pRny cannot lease / road to smother
SO IS 20 absolve itself from its obliga-
tons to the pueIc. 2. Every railroad
company in this stste is liable for the acts
of all persons to whom it contides the
ana control of its road, SIS
sully IS though uader the immediate con
troll of the sgeIc ss provided by its char
Ter. Appellants company shows that
there IVES Clause in the bill OF lsding,
the same being made out in Nashville,
Tenn } to the fleet that the railway
company was not liable for damages by ]
fire while in depot. Held: If the law OF
Tennessee, Were the bill Ct lsdirg wss
given, gave to the shipping contract the
{ feet contended fer. it should have been
alleged snt proven. No reversible error.
HOBBY, j.
Leon & Il. Blum VS.. Fl. E Simpson;
appeal from Bell. Appellants Obtained
1dgnept sgsils. one McL1re 10 Calves
.sn. Execution issued upon this judg-
m2nt sld Vas levied upon etock OF
goods Claimed 81 sppellee, VINO had pur-
chased same from said Mcclure
A Appellants claimed that tie goods
we're disposed Of by Mcclure with intent
10 deiraud his creditors. l IL is shown
that Mcclure had transferred & lot Of
notes st 90 per cent. discount when they
bore 10 per cent. interest, which he had
received for the goods in controversy;
that Mcclure transferred those notes TO
his father in ,sw. Thu Sc Totes were re-
turned to NJ re day or two before
ext oApsrs ware served upon
Baggett, McLure's father in law, by ap.
pellants. The notes were then purchased
By Bsggett's brother and placed in Bag
eett's hands for collection. Its eleo sho wu
that S400OsHo OF goods were Trans
lerred for $4,000. Held: TIE evit ence
does no. support the verdict. TIE acts
Ct Mcclure were sbundsntly snfi Gent to
arouse IN he mind OF appellee suspicion |
that McLure's conduct WAS inconsistent |
with so honest purpose. Reversed and |
remsnded. Hobby, J.
Iaternatiorsi and Great )rthern Rail. |
way Company vs.. N. L. Hester; appeal
from Travis. Suit oy sppellee for dam
sges for personal IL uries sustained while
on hand car, same being caused by a
;cllison With passenger train. Appel>
lee vss an employe OF appellant
.t III, time of the injury.
Il is SHOWN that appellee sustained the
.ls ged irjuries while obeyirg the orders
u tag sec:Ion boss In trying to take the
and c.r from the track before it was
struck By the passenger train. Il is fur
her shown, tins. when the hand car Was
.bout ns.f way OF the track the section
Joss ordered the men TO turn loose and
get out Il the way. This order WAS
,beysd by ell except sppellee, who
claimed ta.s he did no. hear the order.
|. IL does not sppsxr inst appellee's In
aries we're the direct result Of the CUPS.
de isn't or negligence Ct the section
JOSE, Wilson. The facts do not
iii :Inaliysly show the exercise on
he part Of appellee OF such care
Is reasonable, ptui lent NAE would have
lsed under like circumstances. q When
! servant is employed upon work which
s equally within the knowledge OF master
nd servant Of dangerous nature, the
Master is not liable for the conse quences
If An ACCIDENT occurring TO the servant
n the course of his employment,
lnless there be negligence On the part Of
he former and the abssISe Of rashness
N the part of the later. Reversed and
Hobby, j. :,
Nelson Cocker ct al. VS.. T. n. Roberts;
appeal from Montague. Trespsss to try
title. Appellee claims under:s deed, with
he following description Of the land in