The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-04-23

State than any litigation occurring In re-
cent times. On the return of l. ii. Bur
ney md 5. II. Cowan. the attorneys for
MIR Bush ana the Cattle Ilaisors' asso.
citation of Texas. n reporter obtained from
them the following facts touching the
result of the trial; The plaintiff rested his
PENDANT had by driving two herds of cal.
tie through the plaintiti pasture in How
ara and Harden .counties communicated
to his cattle the Texas fever from which
many OF them died. This occurred In the
summer OF 1893. and the season being bad
ana the ruin getting scarce, natural causes
combined with the fever produced a much
larger mortality than otherwise would
have resulted.
While the plaln,iff only recovered a
small amount for such cattle only as died
from the immediate effects of the first
outbreak of the disease. the legal aspects
OF the case, 50 far as concerns the pub
He, is not effected by the matter.
The law of the ease az established is
mat the plaintiff was outtlcd 10 recover
II the defendant drove its herd OF cattle
through the plaintiffs pasture and COM
municatcd Texas fever TO the piaintiff' g
cattle aud at that time knew or had no
,ice, OF the fact, that such a result was
iapic 10 occur, ana this, regardless of
whether the defendant was violating any
law or committing any trcspass 10y driv-
ins SAD nerd of cattle through the plain
tiifs pasture.
II was also settled that the plain,ifr
after discovering that his cattle had be-
come infected was bound TO use ordinary
care To prevent or l"ssen the Injuries. re-
sulting or about 10 result from such fever
Inspection. Tie two main issues IN the
chsc. lenNing ont the question of the
amount OF plaintiffs damage: First VIII
cattle from Southern Texas. from nolits
south OF the quarantine line comiuuui-
OF that linz And second did INC a.
PENDANT company have notice that they
Wnre hahle 70 commnr catc said discascr
Tho plaintiff took the deposition of the
chiei, az the lmfrau of animal industry OF
the United Stutes. aud others connected
with the cattl" Transportation of that
hnr"du. anl rested Tho case upon what
Is known as tn. tick theory. ana upon ,lIs
| lropusltion great deal of evidence was
taken upon the question of communicate
my the Texas fever. ami the PLAINTIFFS
posltl"n ihai the FEVER was communicated
alone by mcuns of the Southern cattle
ick was fully sustained. Upon the qucs-
ton OF notice to the defendant comlianV
that their cutie were liable Ia rninfnulil.
cato the dieensc, th" court admitted eVi-
dence of establishment Of the quarantine
Aiol'ium ny this STATE and the noiori"ty
given all these acts. hut followed the SUI
rr'me court Of Texas in holding tina, tho
more act thai the cattle came from south
of the quarantine linc was not sufficient
to charge the company with notice that
,ihey Were liable TO communicate tho
Texas fever,
The cattle were driven in this instance
from me injected district previous 10 The
timc when the State quarantine law tool.
effect. Perhaps had that law then been
in effect the court would have he'd other
wise inc recovery was not based upon
violation Of Tho uiitcd states law or tha
law of the state, and the liability of one
dr!Ving cattle across the quarantine line
north for any damages accustomed thorehv
would not depend upon the question rs to
whether IT was lawful or not. hut simply
upon IN. question as 10 whether said per
son driving ouch Southern cattle know br
had good reason to know that such fever
To- cattle north Of that line and IL seems
thar II would be immaterlai whether such