Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-10-23

ufm ana C6CI6pib. L. INC COuEa IIsfScC
as follows: ''If the proof shows shss tas
sickness vas NOS the result Of her being
put OF, Dat that 1t is reasonably certsir
tina. /. gould have resulted from her age
sud health, aId tlss sum scaness is
reasonably Certain to result iron sge,
he1mstem End prem0uitton to copsCmp-
tIoI, aud Laai tue treatment Of plaintiff
on that night did noteuperindUce rhe dla
east, tEen the railway company would
not OF liable fer any permanent iIl1ry "
Held: Erroneous. This charge shif>a
the Duroea Il pro upon the defendant TO
show that the sickness would have result
ed notwithstanding the exposure. The
charge is tlso errCnCous in the use
OF tee term ";easonsoly certain ="
20 fty ths, proc f Of S fact must be made
Reasonably cortair, is ~ tie htersl iri-
port o; the wJrds, tectamoult TO Saying
tna: tie ptoot must ne made beyond q
erred in charging that "2hat woulG be
reEs Jnsb.e time f5r man TO aligat
from tralnn would not be "s reason
able tins for & lady shs: is aged Tdis
should have been left exclusively TO ths
j1ry TO determine, as q matter OF fact
from 8ll the Circumstances. reversed
and remsrded. Games. j.
st. L ule, Arkansas and Texas Railway
Company vs. N. A. c Msakie; 6ppsai
from FL ndereon Appellee, his wife aud
two Small children desiring &c go from
Athens, Tex, 10 Nashville, Tenn, pur-
chased snd paid Cox twO f:st cisss tickets
10 the lat.er place. After leaving athens
on :heiT j Crney tina conductor cerue
arouad aud took 10 their tickets, inform
~ e5nt-n In, s,tt
them te Tide, In q. second class csr, de
spite sppellet's earnest p-otestations to
the eject thkG he baa bought and paid
for f;st-c.ass ticket, computed appellee
and his family to 90 iuto this second
class coscl, ii appearing inst the same
WAS occupied By coarse whites and ne
groes; ina: tobacco smoke, flth and
Dirt were prevalent 1t is shown that sp-
pellee's wife, 4 cultured, refined Isdy,w
made sick by the fumes OF the to-
bscco snake All various other odors
that pervaded the coach. II Is farther
shown that appellee and family were
compelled 20 ride In coach CT this de-
scrtption the ep,ire journey; also that
the conductor e red to let appellee ride
In the f1rst-class coach If he would pay
l cent per mile ezra. There was no
question sut what appellee bonghE snd
paid for frst-cisss tickets. l. There Wss
no error In allowing witness 10 testify
tnAt few days after the tickets hsd been
sold the tlcEet agent who sold Same to
appellee stated thsg ne sold him frst-clsss
tickets. 2. 1; is no defense to 81 action
Of this Character tlat appellee mignE
have psocussd seats in the Sfftst-
c!ass coach EbY. paying l & cent'
y,iI h.I "a
p sd for first class tickets and was entitled.
10 be transported in 9 dtst-clsss cossh
without further payment Of maHTS
5, A psrty, whose dnty 1t is to perform s.
service necessary to the fuf lnent OF his
contract. snd to prevent Injury to result
from is vi laJion, Bsy in all cases be
locked TO to ia # tnet day when he has
equsl knoWle6g. ana opportunity and he
cannot be heard to urge in defense Of AZ
action based his own breach Of con-
tract end conseq len. violation OF dusg,
either for the purpose OF defeating the
sction or iessealna the damages. Al
frmed. S:Iytoa, G J.
B. L. Lee and T. E. Bcrpwell vs.. W. j.
Welborn; appeal from Upshur; suit bg
appellee to recover damages ioc leyytug
upon and selling sllege d ex =mpt property.
L
could not rigl;iuLly bring in different
verdict, or one more favorable to stae
psrs3 complaining, the Judgment upon
Judgment WAS for $500, with interest
The 1ury were required to take
court could not lawfully increase
No ~ hn sd hr
adding interest. Tbs judgment in this
and here rendered for appellee fox $500
{ The amount found by shs iarS) appellants
To Day ell coats Il this appeal. Walker,
H.rgadj1e, McKittrick 6 Co rs. James
B. Wal field; appeal from Rsi River
by appellants, who LEVIED upon the lands
of appellee. snd smong others levied
upon lot IL snd u in the town
of Detroit, in K ID Il yer county. Ap
peliee answered. aiming lots IL and II
that sppeilee was In Business as mer.
chat 10 the town OF D3tfLlt Ga the !
two lots in controversy ne had store |
and warehouse. OlJanuary Is, 1888, he
transfer ed his business, that Is IS TO the |
S1OlS duu iCIhuuISC CUDbAlUSu Al |
house, and some lands to another party,
with Instructions to use the proceeds to4
psy OF his creditors. He, howeF8tyf
stayed In the house nm sellssxnd |
sold garden seeds sud Teecns
on commission and also engaged h b2ysf
Ing and selling cotton. His cotton B1SEs,
samples, SIC we're in the resr end OF the
building. l. appeared that he intendsd8
to resume business again st the earlkF
isse Eoracticsbe. Appellants leviaEon
lots II srd IL along with other property
The court below found that the lots con
SIT ed the business homestead CT appel
lee. Held: Tae court below did not err
in holding that lots II snd ~ constituted
he business homestead Ct appel e.
WslKer, j.
Crescent IcsuIance Company vs. W.R
Camp, ct al, trustees; appeal from
Cherokee. Slit on an insurance policy.
rde policy c,utsiasd . provision TO the
'fsct "sass II tle interest," Of the assured
i the propery be Gay other than the en-
ire unconditional and sole ownership of
ne properly fox the uss and benefi Of the
,ssured, 1t mast be so expressed in ths
written portion OF the policy, otherwise
he policy shsll De void" A part of the
took OF goods insured had ;longed to q
rm composed Of enc Ellenstein ard one
'uenstuEg, deceased, ct the
ha