Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-14

the message was sent is binding on ap-
pellee. No reason is shown why notice
was not given. T63 Tex, q Re-
yersed and rendered for appellant.
Gaines, j.
st. Louis. Arkansas and Texas Rail.
way VS.. Carrie Farley; from Camp. l.
The court instructed the jury that ''or-
dinary care 10 that degree of care per-
son would use under similar cirrum-
stances. deld: Erroneous. Ordi-
nary care 10 the care that person of
ordinary prudence would exercise under
the same circumstances. The jury may
hive understood the charge TO the care
that anv person IN even one of the slight
eat circumspection might exercise under
similar circn rnstances--that Is to say the
slightest care. 2. The contract of q
railway company with passenger does
nos terminate until he has aiighted from
the ears. 3. The court did not err in
refusing 10 instruct the jury that 1.-the
railway company is not bound 10y law
to any GREATER or higher duty towards
female passenger han male one, after
the tram has stoDped reasonable time
at the point Of destination aud the sta
ton has Leen duly announced. For
the error IN the charge the cause IL re-
versed and reminded. Gaines, j.
Texas and Pacific Railway rs. D. A.
Miller; from Hurrison. Suit by appel
lee for damages on account of personal
injuries sustained by his wife. /. The
contract of Il carrier of passengers does
not terminate until the passenger has
aiighted at his place of destination.
[ II Ind. 50; 26 Ind. 232 A contrary
rule, however. has been held in follow
ing authorities: 81 Am. aud Eng. Ry.
cases 47-33 Penn. and Eng. Ry. cases
525, AZ Miss. GA. We hold the rule
above laid down to be sound law, ana
that person injured by the negligence
of the company in alighting, can have
his recourse against the company. 2.
The court can direct the jury to find
either u special or general verdict in his
discretion, and unless it appeurs that the
discretion was abused, we will not re-
wise same. 8. This conductor bein z Il
purity defendant, appellee had the right
10 discontinue AS to him, even after the
close OF the argument and without the
knowledge of appellant company. At
ii"'ned. Stayton, G. J.
l.. A. Yeatman ct al. VS.. J. N.
Haney; from Hood. Suit involving the
terms and provisions OF will. l. EVIL
utnce tnat CERTAIN nelrs mao moved 10
Ohio and were reputed to be dead, and
that certain parties had Inherited and
had received their personal property, is
Insufficient to show the death of such
heirs. 2. The evidence shows that ap-
pellants nave appropriated as many Sec
lions OF land as they were entitled to
under the will and in the absence OF any
evidence showing that they were not as
valuable, section for section, as the re-
naming ones, they are not entitled TO
recover any of the land in controversy,
unless facts we're proved showing that
the lands devised to the Misses Magee
had fallen to them. Affirmed. Stay
ton, c. j.
Texas and Pacific Railway vs.. Roberts
CT al; from CaSs. /. In this the court,
not being satisfied rs to the CORE ctness
OF the statement OF facts sent up in the
transcript. the clerk of the court below
is ordered to send up he original state
ment Of facts as approved by the court
below. So ordered. Per rurinn.
Geo. c. Altgelt vs.. City of San An
tonic; from Bexnr. Motion for rehenr-
ing by both purties. /. Both parties
asking for q rehenrng. the judgment of
reversal is hereby Set aside and rehear-
AIgNnted. Per curtain.