The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1895-12-18
COURTS OF LAST RESORT.
Decisions Handed Down at the Last
Sitting of the Tribunals.
SOME IMPORTANT RULINGS ON LAW
Certified Questions From Civil Courts of
Appeai-A Land Case From Har-
ris County Affirmed.

Austin, Texas, December 16.-Thc fol-
lowing are the opinions delivered by the
supreme court today
THE INTERNATIONAL AND GREAT
NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
". LOUISA SEM EFT AL. certified
questions from the court of civil appeals
Tor the Fourth district. In Al suit from
Bcxar county. to recover damages of the
railroad company alleged TO have re-
suited to the plaintiff from the negligent
operation Of defendants trans--An-
swered in favor of plaintiff below.
The question before the court is, in SUD
stance II In the course of u trial counsel
requests the court to give an instruction
10 the jury which Is refused. but which in
whole or in part IS embraced In the charge
of the court, can the counsel or the party
for whom he acts question the correct
ness of the charge given by the court.
insofar as it conforms to the request
made?
THIS question has aften been before the
appellate courts, and has uniformly, so
far as we arc able to find. been he'd
against the right of party or his coun-
sci, upon appeal, to call in question a
ruling of the trial court which was made
at MS suggestion, and it has been gener-
ally held that when u charge
requested. but refused. was embraced
in the general charge Of the
court, any error arising theretrom
could not be questioned by the party
who requested the charge. The principle
upon which these decisions rest is that
although the charge requested was re-
fused by the court. yet. If tho same prop
osition is embodied in the charge given
by the court, It will be presumed that
the charge as given was so given in COM
pilurUp with the rguupgt made
The judge may give a charge asked
for as it is written by counsel. or may
emnody it or so much of 1t as is deemed
apphcdble 10 the iacts Of the case in the
charge prepared by him, in either event
1t is Il ruling OF the court upon the diles-
tlon made at the request Of counsel
In the case submitted TO us it appears
that IN the instruction given and the iirst
part of that requested by counsel. the
must have been copied from tho other.
We think this is a fair conclusion to be
drawn from the known practice OF courts
on such occasions.
We therefore, answer that upon the
statement as presented to this court, so
much OF the charge requested by the de-
PENDANT and refused by the court, as as
serts the same proposition as that con-
tanned in tho charge given 10y the Judge
should not be considered as error upon
objection thereto by the defendant
We do not mean to extend this rule
beyond the instances in which the act
OF he Attorney becomes a part of the
record in the case
Opinion by Brown, j.
THE CRY OF DALLAS vs.. EVELYN
PEACOCK; certified questions in a case
from Dallas county Fifth dstrict-An-
sWerod in favor of the jurisdiction OF
the judges Of the court of civil appeals.
In this case, and a number of others
pnding on the docket of the court of
dyi appeals for the Fifth district, the
question of disqualification of the judges
nrllrS lfD1pr tho Malta c,aa c,,ad hnlnv