Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-25
CONcLusIONs OF FACr.

train. then turned southwark Bv means
also III this rack the train reaching Cisco
return trip Hun, a. nu engineer acted
iu the capacity " what g. known az
hostlN in turning these trains. AZ point
10 ~ ~ feet N The uu.in truck NJ Che irS-
as Central and Z or 5 feet south OF lhn
Texas aud Pacific truck 'uud near thc point
Of intersection uf the two trucks was
union depot % hmlitpg OF such dimensions
that q person on 70 tSlhepf tho Texas Cen.
ttll east ~ u wnH 300 NifA 500 % train 900
The Texas and Pacific iraA0 going cast until
tho inttcr bad paerd the building
ON July ~. lh,2. ihp fmiu v1Ius nurlh tp
Albany WIS in proper position east uf tIr
union depot The Passengers and baggage
lmd been Transferred from thp Waco Train
and thr hFAf17lN- departure g.t5 O'Clock h.
no. having arrived tno defendant n error
Snd al'Rae ,4f gen oS @9d eG ,r eR
had ronchgS414 Tim of Intersection With
ihe IeyasW ~ 14ssrn tlr va
turned tS van "a a.sS' IL h o@ 9i s .,a.'
turned 7. -, ~ and. ycry sori.
ri,gn no .Ilks- " the approach If lls
;S5 5a,:. s@Iala.el h d5a. @ '8i
ihri. ino1N NSNllU'n WINS uCtE or
IT, huI w I'fu" lu"HUuru nL w.
ts Vg ,n, o, " Win'.l r. ihc d.f"lN%Sttpt
tracks CO prescribed rules wIiktf|lwucr
% ihr operation ~ Do, trnifa Blnncs
M i I,Sis '9lN2s G M, i''" rIa 55,
targets ur days uf fhr cr0 lkfur
working ihorcNt know th,f ,ruonc"
n5 special nS,ur'Ian. M Yr.n,,' I wy
switching trains over h tYurt brf,r.
OF after tho Js-agp of Or ~
1uNCR SiuNs oIETNW.
Ilo c1mt ~ NOT rr u requiring do.
PENDANT 20 ro. 70 trial on the second day
cusr nud though np luy hud been H1rd
calling ih" jury docket While the drfn id.
ani stated uint witness WIS absent whose
pn.ird 90 arrive .1u. this statement dop4
NOT seem il have been drruuI HuMpIrntlv
serious 90 he emhpliod 81 on umdA.IL fur
continuance on tur contrary trlfAlfN,li
stated fiut No. bad uu grounds flrS 1,lf'SN
ehtr N tuwurro appears that hw |&fHp.l
NY W" u,pF'rd ui Wtilmnuy hy s||NtsS
Injured. WlfNS
one Wwtlmrion. witness for uftkn
Wu uNlnE ir.iihrl Tint ho kur i |A
plnl N defendant zoo tIaro anal n ||F
guy u'l Know Dos reputation uH 90 W..
itu'' "r u .'WlHrnhrH was pprWlupdW..N
.hIr'IInu ~ defendant Co tustIf AIfbr A..
follows That witness know d1r fWII.
i.a,nlahrr win iluu uNlRr duAf into IL
~ s9f', s5i. l9',. that he fNk 3 III 10 \
drinks a dny ppshauaS 49, sau.
~ 81 = y H.NIF go r DAYS
& -. I.r iis,
I 10y y
lao snl6SA Ma witness ~, n nsg
KIN ,oma,g.&STS l' would hINa bU
q asa not nnnpSSNnA ~. N. ~. ".l' s.'-,
communicated or hfNsueY known to tho de
s,,ss5i. &c lis 2sra ,&hluG uiit d.
The htnr.s u llnll nofNNRe pn.ilon OF
49, 20 With d,tghduut hu0 Assigned hlm
iIsh, uS sg,' ts,9 " i..us These ac threw
hirmptrance, on character ns disfin
kWshnu irom reputation Tor ntpmper.
hn.y ON De part Of he engineer NJ was
temperance or tho On queer. ,nd ~ ti,at
~ llleihhcihhfr was known. 0r thnt
no no"iie9se lhefr9i waH 20 Doe imnutnd 10
lhc nrirhdaui These were the tWo nec.
essaly Inks IN the plnintna chain of eyt.
&c lct rue Testimony objected to landed
20 anpply ne ilrst llnk IL was therefore
Ai Texas. a2i Railway cnmpnny ys Ration
=. w hrn 40; A. s. D.. Eve ~ law BIO
1 anu n3,r. h not necessary 90 con.
have heou sufficient 10 cstuhlish u,, Ig.i,
or Incompetence sO az 60 affect ths defan-
tino,, 'vSi, ~ ,MaH supplemented by tcs-
or liuu Z, solrlrty was had and ipf,u lam i
skeht VINO had super vision uf tho ro8l h,.i
-h lntprmrd of his Incorporate hlhfs
7,saIo' w. Halfway company N $. W. Rep
Tue court ala not err IN nttrnctipr tho
ywy lhh u appeared from The uncouiI6vert.
e. evidence mat be plaintiff received uI,
injury by the collision III tha defender ",
cars " Is Within the province IN M ,5nrt
~ assume 10 lis charge the cxlstpnpe af Tr
Ie1op 'sseii i'et halfway vs. fearcc. q,
n al iu1 9o9 u t sWoog other matters charged
" 81 llff lao
OF cuploye Cor lnmrirs snsfain'i tI I,'.'
inc reEllgencc or default nf IA frUov esr,,,1l
s sSliS, made further 10 appear ihs
the company iu the arf which rstis.d III
injury or "a tho employment of the nerse,
through whose injury OF misconduct tncl
injuries were sustain "a. Tor. when "A ret.,o,
ent tra Into the service OF "a railway .rot,,is,,,
DO thereby undertakes a. ran Mi M nril
hssI rifks Incident % the employment M
md that " his fell0n.srrvamis v,i, Ivy, y,
kagcd N re same line of duty provided th
.olulAnN ms taken reasonable caro- nm
piWAuunn 20 engage competent servants 4
discharge ne dutts assigned thsin' '"''
II u urged that THIS chnrfe al errnneor
because me jury are left 10 oonIcctur
Mhft ~ meant hy the expression "0is I'M
which caused tho injury. u berauae IL ~
tually instruois tue Jury that the ,connan
WIS exempt nom liability only provided
lNl lANtn Reasonable caro- aud nreonutio
70 engage competent servants IL digstsr..
tne nuues ass gned them without regard
Nn,,nei VIZ Y competency OF the soryal
That portion Of the instruction arst crit
clnyu h4d evident reference Ca the plnil
tina allegations rrifing I'M tho ftnnrn
the defendant 10 keep q target lookout ,
signal, on 10 provide rules. While b dofnt
growing our 81 AN omission was thus coi
funnGnd with a default growing ont IN 4
sci we 90 not think that tle Jury cOnld /
held 20 have boon mialed he,nuse M III
distinction which they should scarcely
required 10 make, The SECOND cmUriew HI
presses as as refinement ~ which II
Language OF lhe charge Is not naturally So
rgpfihp
flmniin IN error complains of ihe foloN
lug puriipu ~ the court "a vhnrcte M M
tue dnly ~ Defendant and those of lfs III
GERS WHO hed The right ana nOwpr to pn
pluy nnd discharge ihe OmnIyfs and 81.
futa ~ Tie company % use rD0souahin tni
~ the selection on nmplNymDui and fptcnllf
~ az ana cnlnpeirrt eryantsi aud N deff
dani htd Nof done sn in the selection
ths empioyo Joke Hall ihen ln iltat ems
s!eicniant Wppd be- liahlr 20 mhnun &
the dn'nag@ sstained BY the accident