Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-06-22
CIVIL COURT OF APPEALS.


No. 600 The Texas and Pacific hailway
company, appellants, VS.. James l.aN,ty,
appellee. appeal from the district court
OF Tarrant county.
CONCLUSIONS.
Appellee recovered Judgment unon the yer.
dict OF Jury for STOOn damages caused
10y appellant nepllgently running lGc o. w
freight trims against HIN at q plnhc streut
crossing In tie city OF Fort Wo:th, where
hy he wns knocked down aud MS MIXERS
cut on ly The wheels Of the eur. me eNi,,
dencc OF appellee tunde out US e1se anu
the verdict Is sustained ther NY potil "
10 negligence and AZ To tile amount on me
recovery. He was hcfnir the 'uhrt .uu
jury, and while there were i1hny nther
statements tended very strongly 20 snow
that the accident dld not occur a. ne cross
lug and that appellee was drunk or 9slerp,
or both when the accident occurred w"
Jury deemed his testimony worthy or ne
lief and their verdict has hrcu approved hI
the Judge presiding lie was tofroborated
their testimony did not greatly strengthen
the ease. After q careful reading al thc
statement OF facts, we have come to ~,
conclusion that we would not NJ WhrtAni'u
In disturbing the verdict We ar further
Of opinion that under the facts VI ms ease
The court ala not err ia instrqctlng me
Jury substantially MS follows; III You be-
licve from the evidence that pllinuus M
jurlcs were produced by thu moving back
ward OF un engine and cars upon ana
against him without the ringing OF the
bell or the blowing NJ the wlirtle Of sWd
engine is the persons In chnrgs II the
same, In stnrting said engine aud ears hucl;.
ward and without the ringing Of said bell
or blowing Of said whistle by said p.rsuus
before defendant WIS struck; and II You
further believe from The evidence that plain
TIN was Injured while In the act OF "rpsS-
lug public street. nni II YOU further he
licvc that plaintiff received said injuries
on account Of the failure " tie persons
In charge u the said engine aud cars 10
ring the hell or blow the whistle you Will
tud for plaintiff, unless You hnl for de-.
frndant under succeeding Instructions
Tue Language Of the court IN hallway rrlu-
pany vs.. Calhoun. 81 Texas, 40, quoted by
=. w, Rep, 900. To the effect hat II Is
error for the court to charge more than
ne statutory duty OF tue train operatives
IN approaching public crossing 10 ring
rs by appellant as announcing 4 iulp which
THIS Charge violates. The correctness VI
the decisions on those cases Is not QueA.
TONED, but MS applied to the facts OF this
case the language therein employed to
emphasize The principle that negligence Is
M issue " net is believed 10 be too broad.
and In quoting 10 the writer WAS probably
guilty OF prUmulgoiing mere dlctum,
hallway company vs.. Mnntnln, 40 Texas.
hS2' hallway company vs.. Nixon, ~ Texas,
q; hallway company w. Wilson, 90 Texas.
". Here tie case made by plHlntin he
low and submitted by the court 10 the jury
was one solely NJ nm injury resulting from
q collision at street crossing under cir.
cnnlstnuCos Il Ills theory be accepted, which
made 1t manifest that the inCNeUsublc fail.
IRE 10 observe statutory requirement led
TO the accident.
Tile other assignments have all been care.
fully examined ana are not believed 10 he
well taken
The Judgment will therefore be affirmed.
STEPHENS
Associate Justice.