Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-11-07

hight trains. We are or the opinion 'nht
the language Of the rule Is such es to
render II reasonably susceptible Of the
construction that II was not lntcnled 10
be applicable to night trains. .,,.. =,
This being true, IL was question OF
fact for the Jury to determine wt'e thsI
the deceased was guilty of contributory
IN fa so ,SS Jury Mas not S what
10 the proper construction Of The rulc,
but whether under all the circuinstanees
the deceased was guilty OF comnoutsN
NC ara therefore. OF che oplnioE, ,, nat
the special charge, was correctly refused
Judgment affirmed.
opinion by Denman, j.
AMANDA CHESTER vs.. ]. W. BREIT-
LING EFT AL. trespass to try tue, from
BeXur county, Fourth dlstrict-kev nrs9d
and remanded.
suit by Amanda Chester to recover a
lot in the city OF san Antonio. Defen-
dant claimed title under purporred deed
executed by the plaintiff In Louisiana
sho then being the wife OF one X. \,
CoolSsey. The alleged deed was In the
form OF a notarial act. and purportSd 70
lie acgaiseecd in by the husbanh Of the
alleged graIror. IL was imperative p9-
cause the officer before whom, It was exc
cutcd failed 10 certify II In the manaer
required by hlw. During the progress
OF the trial. the defundants oficrsd In
evidence tho deed above mentioned, upon
which vas written eert'leS,e Sy &c &c
Rrantor as the wife Of ~. j. Ghebter,
| which was IN due foIsu of law. This GER
| tlnCate bore date subsequent 10 tho iulnB
Of this suit. IN this ccrpneate der pros
ent husband did not Join. II ksng al
legged that no had abandoned her,
| Plaintiff offered In evidence certain tes-
| tintony tending to show that the last Rc-
| kno wledgement was not real. and that II
had been obtained from her by fraud
| /. We are or the opinion that this r,il-
| Ing was orror, Had tho defendants after
the acknowledgment. plsadtd such
plaintiff would not have been entltled to
ahowipE It's invaiidity., az. s., Art. 200.
OF an action Of trespass 10 try title, ara
| the defendant pleaded not El4ilty. There
WAS no plea alleging a new okscutief
| SO. also. 1t may be. that II the deed had
been nlcd among Che papers Of the cause
three, days before me trial and NOTES
| Ming. she should not have been permitted
20 attack H. without ming an aindsyi'
q facts showing thst hhe alleged as'1h9wl
ESD The trial court did not place rs
riling upon any OF these grounds, but
on the, ground that the plaintifrs PLEAD
was error, go Texas, sIlD
2. In our opinion the rejected testimony
resulted in the acknowledgement, and
| tends to show that the plaintiff had nc
| iHtention Whatever OF making such nc
3, The Judgment of tho lower court was
reversed by the court of civil appeals, bul
upon another ground The latter court
held that. after tn. death OF the husband
who was living ut tho Vino the deed was
hrst attsinNted 70, be executed by the
srantor she could not aGknSwiedge 4
was error. An abandonment by the sec.
end h lsas 4 shoHn We think thai
| trantfzd n that nf sole Il
tains all the. elements necessary 70 suct
an ACKNOWLEDGMENT, and, 4 properly ant
r.. is;I g Ohio St, 49, . Dana, "a; /
The Judgment Of the court of civil ap
| peals Is nfffrmed and that OF tho dis
triot court. is reversed and the cause
lions, however; to proceed in aecordanc'
| with this opinion.
Opinion by Gaines, C. ].
INTERNATIONAL AND GREAT
vs. NIL co6 AIhstoA suit t 10 recoSei
damages for personal lnjuries: from
Robertson, county; Third district-Re
Nersed and remanded
At the time tho alleged injuries wer'
inflicted, one Mcmillan was IN employ,
OF tho railway which was then In tn,
hands of Il. NJ. Campbell, receiver. Sale
Mcmillan was in charge Of and operating
locomotive engine as engineer. Plaintiff
wSh the consent OF said engineer. an;
the fireman operating the onsips. got or
the tender OF the engine at Lake station
TO 80 70 Mhrqnez. another station on sac
ROAD. while on tbs trip, ana while tbs
engineer and fireman were epgagel n
operating the locomotive and while plain
TIT was on the tender of the loo IN Siive
fireman, the fireman. without the knewl
edge or consent of plaintiff introduced thl
end of nozzle or hose. connected VIII
tho boiler. into tina hin pOcket Of plain tiff
and tie engineer turned upon Mn ho
water or steam. which zcslied and IN
tured him; these injuries were painful ant
ssSsfal wsas 40 and % arc q ma nj
right Np to the heel 81 his right foot. b,
his living as a iahorsa. COOPER was at Il,
II was not the intention Of the engineer
iStsnaed 70 disqhaaEe cold water lpo oii
him for their nmusepsnt.
1. Tho only question presented q; Wal
The acts Of The iiSeman and engineer i
turning the hot water or steam upof
THE answer to this question depend,
upon the question as TO whether or not
sssss aR' t fs, pes ss We @sTi pan s
inS i ~ ai 81 ssSs: IN aaessf
81 7sS as. I'm. Tue Injuries oomplalned q
s sla nee 's sna firS.5 tss psrfsr@ahe,
| ~ jndspendens' acts a tbess sery.nt.. Il
sss iha sss sisssnrs y ho2 wsiss iroT
"a Sslss s e .ss ag gSs IS.
.: Va not 3oas fef The plsposs q as
tsasSAs au'y. Bat sahnpiy as one o.