The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-04-24
The ROUND BALE CASE.
Court Of Appeals Has Upheld the De-
eiSiOn Of The District Court.
BUT A REMEDY IS NOT POINTED OUT.
Entitled to Lower Rates, but There Is
No Authority by Which They
Can Be Gained.

Austin, Texas. April 23-Tbc court 81
civil appeals today affirmed the Judgment
OF the lower court In the case Of Weld a
Ne'ilIe' round cotton bale people OF Hons
ton against he railroad commission. The
SUIT was brought to compel the commits.
sion to give them reduced rate ON col
Ton shipments on account Of the density
OF the round bale over the square. The
lower count held that Weld y Neville
should have relief, but that the court was
without authority to grant It,
The state appealed the case and the court
OF civil appeals held that the Judgment Of
the lower court was not mai and rhrre-
lore they could not act. Weld Il Neville
took the ease to the supreme court un a
writ OF error, aud that court reversed the
court Of civil appeals and held that the
Judgment In the trial court was danl
one
The opinion Of the court Of civil appeals
lonly Is as follows
Railroad Commission NJ reNus VS. Weld
\ Neville ct AL Appeal from Travis
county Opiuion
The issues involved IN this case, together
WIN the result are fully stated IN the
opinion delivered NY this court In disposlng
or this case, which viii be- found reported
In Third Texas Court Reporter sos. and
tho opinion of the supreme court In tle
same ease, In the Fourth Texas Reporter.
here
There is evidence 10 the record which
suntlehtiallN sustains tho avermentS NJ the
plalutih petition. The trial court held
as determined by It's Judgment, that the
rlassnoNtinn of rates applicable tn the
transportation ~ cotton were unjust aud
unrcaS' uallo whom applied TO appclccs,
ana mat the refusal OF the railroad com
mission to establish different and lower
rates ON tn" compressed cotton in round
nales, was unjust and unreasonable to the
pHlutih. These questions are the only
rouil"rerted issues tn the case All that
o. necessary for MS to determine I'm PASS
ing upnn the questions Of fact Is whether
there Is evidence that Justified the TRIAL
con"t I'M thr conclusion it reached II il
unnecessary 20 review an the evidence
upon this point. or 10 state our reasons
why the Judgment can no sustained. or To
undertake to point out from the mass Of
testimony upon this subject the evidence
I'M the record that supports the Judgment.
as IT is only necessary I'm disposug OF this
question I" state that In our opinion, the
oNldCuCc is sufficient to establish the fpciS
found Ivy the court md we agree with tho
court IN tho conclusion reached as To the
facts established 10y tine Judgment
i"rlc "lc assignments oi errors which
complain Of tic action of the eourr In
refusing To sustain demurrers interposod by
ibo defendant. In our opinion. these as.
sisumtnts arc not well taken and the couit
was correct in its ruling uren these qucs-
tons.
We arc Of the opinion that the action NJ
the court in sustaining tho demurrcrs at
the nlaintn IN the defendants answer, as
| complained Of In the eighth ana ninth as
Sitnments of errors was proper We dc NOT
mink the questions there presented wore
proper to nc considered by the court
We have no authority 10 extend tbc relief
requested by appoiccs in their nrSt ann
second cross assignments NJ errors
We find no error in the record, ana tho
Judgment is affirmed,
Affirmed. Fisher.
Chief Justice.