Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-31

Of appellee was 70 seant ne 20 Justify the
cuuft iu failing 90 submit the iselU we
are confirmed in or view 81 90 the CT
rcctness of this Conclusion from the fails
ure Of the appellant % complain q the
verdict on this gruunl."
ia fills connection we states
4 A. we read the record appellant InN-
81. in any manner suhicient 10 challcugc
the attention OF this court 60 complain
Of The verdict on the frOuua that mere
was no evidence that the ar brakes in
question were defective. No proposition cin-
hrecing this ground. either FORMALLY on
substantially is set ont either IN ita mo-
! ton Tor q new trial Or 10 its assignments
In rs twenty-fourth assignment Of error
which embodied its twelfth ground Tor
new trial, among a number 81 other proR,9,
fereut and distinct issues. appellant alleges
that the evidence shows by q great pre-
pundcrncc thereof u at the ar
brakes we're not defective" There Is a
painatle difference between the PROPOSE
ton that the evidence pfepondcrnies on q
given issue and the proposition that there
II no evidence 90 that Issue. Indeed the
proposition that the evidence greatly pre-
p0ndcraiea IN favor Of suniclcncy ~ the
air brake includes the idea that there was
evidence though menger, showing them 10
lp detective.
This twenty fourth assignment Of error
r. grouped in appellants brief With the
twenty SECOND twenty THIRD aud twenty
NTH assignments Of error. and thus group
cii. each containing in itself propositions,
WISE they are submitted ar ln themselves
propositions 90 be- considered hy ihe np-
prllant court. THIS mcth0d q inviting q
revision ~ questions Involved "a sn vlola-
tive Of rule ~ OF our supreme court with
reference 10 the proper preparation ~
briefs That we would probably have merit
80 confuscdiy urged by appellant on the
GROUND referred TO- Resides. the action ~
appellant On Itself requesting las ~ ala in
rs third special instruciioul the subInls
~ ~
would tend 60 cause us 10 overlook such
complaint N. indeed. 10 had been made.
2 we adhere 70 our former coneiusiqn
character. 20 the effect that the nlr-hrakps
in question were defective n there be
evidence though meagcr tending 10 support
court TO withdraw this issue from the fury.
Parker w. Chancellor, rs Texas. llSi Rail-
way company W robertson ~ TEXAS
3C1. 10 would probably have been the
duty " the court 10 set aside the verdict
had u been rendered on this Issue ngnlnst
the great prCpoulcrancc Of thc evidence.
As Indicated. however IN our original Oplu-
Son. the verdict of the jury WINS. ns we
lllnt founded. not upon the issue OF DE.
furflvc uir brakes. bat upon the issue ~
inpyporiouco on thA part 0f the plaintiff
uud OF the failure of appellant 10 provide
him with prnucr rules and regulations u.s.
zion.
g. n we bc mistaken IA the conclusion
that there was evidence tending 90 show
defects iu the air brakes, nn Inspection
81 the record leads us tu think that mp
pelluutH proposition inserting the contrary
did not n the first Instance merit considern-
ton from us. This proposition Is ns fol-
lows:
There was no evidence before the Jury
that tho ulr brakes were I'M any respect
defective. ~ "a reversible error for the
court to charge upon uu issue in support
~ which there is no evidence, ua IN creates
in The minds ~ the jury an impression
Tint iu the opinion ~ the court. there IA
sufficient evidence 90 warrant q finding upon
such Issue"
The proposition f. submitted under MP
pcllunts nlntocnth assignment asserting
error 600 the first paragraph ~ the court n
charge This assignment rs only copied in
the brief in uurt u contains ms shown by
thc record not hy the hrior four specified.
ilonE ~ error ia regard 90 the charge 90
which u rpfors. Tho specifications relate
tlW us Inspector ANA 10 bis duties M such.
They do not even remotely refer 90 the
Issue ~ defective mfr brakes. To have cn-
titled thc appellant TO a ruvlew Us us uf
tue proposition referred TO- ~ should have
embodied or covered the proposition. sub.
stautluly az least. IN an appropriate og-
dgument of error and have copied ths us
Acumcut in its brief. Such nctlon ON the
part Of an appellant Is suggested and re-
adverse utigAut whlc'l evidently caused the
adoption Of article 1u3T uf our revised
statutes ou the subject Of "nssl mment Oi
error aud OF ruloF - aud ~ ~ our gl-
prrmc court with reference tn the sub.
mission ~ causes Ia the appellate courts
We do not think that n COMFORTS with this
spirit Of fairness that liugant should be