Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-06-11

No 1856 Gnlf Cnlnludn aud Santa lie l,ail.
way company, appellant, VI. john ". bay,
app.llrri appeal NON the district court
OF Wise county.
CONCLUSIONS.
The verdict Of The jury M his ease which
IL supported by the testimony, establishes
the conclusion TINT appellant ntrllgruuy
burned the grass growing upnh 500 acres
% nppeNcr'r lana aud also thereby injured
the MR. nnd sod Of the snnic, 10 hia dAm-
age siuS, With Interest thereon al 5 per
cent per nnnum frgm oct, 30 lssi,
"a The urH mud second uvlgnmrnts ~
error complain NJ Tie improper admission
Of evidence as TO the value " thr use Of
the grass ia appellee uud la not cunnniug
Tue evidence To lhr actual mnfkrt value "
The grass al the time and pluip Ut the buru.
and ~ TO Tho Injury done The sod or roots
OF tile gr1Hs in not combining HE evidence
10 tue dlurronru between the iuurktt value
Of the land immediately before aud inmcdl
niely uttrr The Injury Qultc u number az
witnesses testified ns tn the value NJ the
grass nnd tlir damage tp the BOD, hut the
I'M OF exceptions relied upon 10 support
these assignments fail Ia vet ont amy part
OF this evidence We are NJ opinion that
such a hil does not require ns tp search
the entire statement NJ facts 10 select there.
from such evidence AZ we might drrlu in-
admissible
81 Tue third mud mn assignments M
error complain NJ tlip refusal uf tho court
pelham. We nrr nf opinion lhut ,hosc
charges, IN 30 far ~ they we're correct and
applicable were gi,ru ia the nnlu charge
uud especially 10 the sixth charge a. the
throughout nppcllnuts brief that the trsti-
mOuy should have been limited iu It's nds
mission aud 10y tho uhnrpe, 10 The nrtuul
the ground cannot he Sustained M ths ease.
for the reason That the proof tended IN
show that II had no market ynluO. The
court submitted the is4ur iu tile luiy nv to
whether there Was nurkrl value eriah.
lshpd hy the evidence Nud " No. to
measure lho damage thVrrhNs hut " not
that, ns repuosied by appellant 10 the sixth
the value "hy Tho circumstances ~ the
ease" which circumstances wrru Ia tive
main rlurgc more fully set out, Of which no
complaint Is uindv.
t3i The only remaining assignments
found IA appellants brief IRE tile eighth
and ninth. which complain that the verdict
from date anterior Ia the date Of ihe
hre, NJ alleged IN the petition, nni that The
verdict WA nor supported ~ rnHpirhl rpiu
petent evidence The proof Developed That
ihr FIRE occurred % mouth ar Two prlnr lu the
dale alleged Ia the petition The Jury ru-
culaied interest under HE Charge " the
court from the date of me tre as Shown
in The testimony Onr conclusion upon this
point Is that HE date, as alleged IN the
petition. WIS not mairrinl aud Tint lie
allegations were broad rngifh Ia cover tie
full damage Sustained, which would include
interest ON the nniount " The damage nom
the date u the lnlurfp
As TO the total amount of the verdict be.
Ing excessive, 10 " not exceptionally large
such Ncrdlcta. u seems 10 us 20 give very
fuil compensation Tor the loss sustained,
appellee dld not rrntly ovri.csilnnie the
extent Of the Injury, N which u was the
province 81 The Jury 10 judge tho verdict
There being nn other orrnr assigned the
Judgment will De affirmed. S1EIHENN.
Associate Justice.