Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-13


charges given by thc court and are OF
opinion that none OF tlc specific ObiacJ0Hg
made thereto M its projections are well
taken, ana no useful purpose could be SUBJ
served hy discussing them ccrlatm.
Let the judgment OF the court below be
I'm ull things affirmed signedl
HEAD, Associate Justice.
COURT or CIVIL APPEALs-'rhird Dis.
tnct
Auailn. Tex. Jan. 12.-The following opin.
Ions were read m the court Of cvil appeals
for the Third district on Jan. II
keeciycr5 o. the International and Great
Ngrthen Railway company VS. w. e..
This Is nn agreed case In which the facts
show that aUpcllers contracted with uu
agent OF appellant fof ce.lnln numO3t ~
cars. ln which to ship cattle. which c1ss
were TO- ba in readiness nt q certain place
Ht specified time the cars werc in h9ud
as per ngrecmput mld ihH cgtlC were tut
in thCiu. utter which IL was discovered tIut
thc cattle had not been Inspected ~ roe
quired Wy statute. They We're taken Dut
of ic cars and while being inspected suiuo
W the ears were turned over tu anpiLrr
| shipper AND the delay uul consequent dam.
hEt complained of caused. The defense "a
thut the agent could moi receive the cattle
for shipment until they had been Inspected
according tp Jaw. and thnt until thu ship.
per had complied with tho provisions OF tie
| statute. the agent was no liberty TO give
We cars iO any customer who has 500 come
plaindHs Wei" ra6uirci 10 ' have i '" aI Inv Inv
arfs rot,tt, 90 ,t,u,,,o,t.'' .a,' ~ w
neIofe they could deliver their cattle tO
agent Womb bn nm of-endsr tnder NE ,,Y,
ny receiving the cattle before suCh
Iui compliance There would have been
agent had moi slammed tho delivery ~ ,j.i,,.
tius cattle 10 receive those of the other.
shipper The fact that the second cus:
meut could Dot nrert no riybt M ,iIiriinp,
utdor thnir contrprt Tudar mo 90. ~,
scented we nrc of the opinion thnt Jefan.
dnnts Wpro liable fgr t6c G"inv nnd W.,
this ront1u Judgment A. ntjtr,,d ort,i',
by Justice Caiiard
GALVESTON. Harrisburg. ana SIM Antonio
Railway COMPANY NJ. w Enlof f.nig
Ghuduiouur "'''N' AVN
Thir Wqs ,ttii f,r d,uto,s t ,.t.t5
painuh m his ppfilnu. cb1rttad tbsf b" T,i
expended 5000 on do.fois NM. pU a.. ''g ,"d
the plomun was asked 10 appr1yim9t. Viu
Incident To- whc ' be a NJ ny rgpI} gs, OF h1
tcitlmoBy TeycIVible u .rr',l l'n9aion o. liS
nppcllee sought tn rono,rr f,r oSrondit,,.,,
uecasioucd IN mo unri.s ipHitt.J No.,
him. hs suit Is similar to n gut unon I'm
account and tho snne mics ip r",sn,,.c
to the INTRODUCTION of tostimouv sh,ii5 ,,
NV 'Tla e,iIntI.. v.,s ii,'itaS ,'tt vi
Legations For thls error the bidgnspt A.
by Iustire Eev NF'"''"
international ami gr.at N,rtt,r,, gstto.,,
company W. Frcdrlkc Kuchn. ~ nh fro,n
CuinnI w. "' """
Thla IA tl.e epe,pl ,,,o,t 80 AMI. 80.
40 TexuB. as4l Mo cnsn ,yent t IA ~,
the same amended ppiition v,lh, tb. NJ
duou Of "a substitute Tor tral amend.
mont. guncrnl dpmurror ,yns 0vetri,icJ
aud THIS M u.sigucd nd o,ror mo ,stjtt,,,
presented "a uupstIou Tor ur tur,. h ~
facts stated are true and mar ono fbot
shluld be- decided by tho CONT an dop,ur
ron The vito of tb1 donc,e,,I 80. "" 49,
20 tcstfy over objection that Kuehn com.
ihS collision nm to XIV , t,0u thG uhs or
The rule n tbii ropnintnts .,i.tst,, u'e W.
fedng aud pNrlHnI1tions ~ nr,s.rt ,,ei, o,,
admissible JUS rus gprinc. II m. ,,,t,ttnt,,tv
were made afior Euphu Ind Ir,,,,h t tits
suit for damages OR nfipr he llti9nii"n ,yns
On view uUr Womb MOI ba "REMINISCENCES
/ There Wpts nihrr poiut4 ~ pyIIr,,.. ,Vili,a,
should Inv. bs-.o excluded ga r tti
roA ,Ons irr ulrncnt h. ra,'r., n,,i H' Ky
c1usr rpmaulod. Opmiu I,y h.t' N"' SI
luw.
500 ~ "'' FROM WI
This ig un nctilu az trcsp,ss O., ,r. ,tu,
90 .Uuu IUrus of land la \VIis,Y D,,,t,, '''tt
turns UPON one point The decd a,,grt.,i
county no IN Denliis ,,Ustit,,aoti DyNH
iu the chain of fIflc imam ,tLt,i, b. ",t,ii'N
tl1s rest lUclr claim to ihr jnul Te i1I"
ductlou of INNS drrI MA nl,i,.,,t b., '' ,l'''u'
r.llsut hrrnu.a of b., fIUita 1p
/ tho luud H CONTROVERSY Mo ri. G I'm
settled u5t less Indulgence win he
| . H.H Ian.
rrty con'ninni la dopds ig..I 'l p,vit'
sUry sules under iu,frlrl 5g., w." '"Nii'u'
plies io UrsurIuiions tI,.u ID, I.. '"',, stE
instruments yolnntnrilt s''. WI N''.,Nl
| owner of fHp propsrt, mo t,,.I ,n Ivy Wv
Ederati0u does MOI unin, no ,.,,,','' ' ,u.',
or political division when, U, t.1'' H'ale
0tpd. nor does m othrr,ylsc i.,.i WY
mud pouyttod For ttis r. ',tln' tN'
mcui is rst.racr nnJ M. ,.,,' ,'u !Iut
Opniou hy Iustier It,,' "".N ''"l'i'u'u'
JN~pnh NHlle cf nj W. tbc ,,tt,.
tlu ' Ivy Oh AUS
rhls is q case In which tb, o,.,,.ii,,.,..
| to restrain thn rolIertl,n ,f n',uWlta Ne'h
known AS tb, .,Dnn,n t"y H1t ,,",,aiR toN
tt nav Interest on ppd nr"rtt" WV l'tNlcu
fuJ for Tho dnai pnvinebt of f,,, Nl.NlnE
city of Austin. uogotimcd ian r'ien ,no, t.,
Tor tic pnrnose ~ spn,l,iH, '4io'ado river
| lichls and Watcr. IN the lo,ca, c,,,rt| WIN
erAl demurrer Ia minimize nstitt,V ,Al" s,N'
mincd and nsslgnluH thi ms ,rr " H9a
Cuse wins appcalca fo Tho ,,,rt Ntvn lu'
peGlR. ''" "p
Tho FIRST question la dn,I1. a. ,.,4,
Associate Ju.tlco Koy q. di..,t,W ut'l,tl
reason ~ such interest as he mgv 'ib' .yN NY
tlN payer Oh The CIV of autfi, ''Iatn anu
of thc Inst ieeisln6irn n,',i nr orlS
udVc OF the toprt ~ ci,if t,NN 'u'l NO
in any cause wherein ho n,a,F l' ,u'lW H'5
iu ihe question to BE- do,"ri,ino. % yea
the previous laws rpculptine n,n l 'n'uv'
question Involved i'm ths s,it 'tf' ln We
qualify mo ndpe nom sitfin, w.. KY uih
Of thr citt.o irnnso ds..i.t''- il VIC lfihl
when thn rrosnuf tn,v w "Nty iN lofte
rs pros umel ,har me- Iori.i 49, IVY" unu 10
of their oNt.fence ana effl,i IN MYa aNlrN
Ga IlUln ANA rs kusccnthr Of etir NV. &
srucuOn We are Coustoinol ~ b,i1 NV
Aa1,rI.t. H.. nv. 49, ''t." w. NhiN tNNl