The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1903-02-04
kHE POTTS CASE.
Supreme Court Decisions % &oca
Interest.

were rendered IN 9lllllDcf Ok cases OF
which several are of local interest. For
instance the Potts case. 1t will be re-
called that the husband OF the plaintiff
was killed on August ?, 1901, with his
CO-workcr. Whitworth, on Texas ave-
nue while stringing wires for che Cum
berland Telephone Company which
wires came in contact with the span
wire supporting the trolley wire Of the
Shreveport Railway Company. The
widow, Mrs. Potts, brought suit against
the Shreveport Belt Railway Company
for $4,000 damages. The curry rendered
a verdict for $1,000. The case was ap-
pealed by che Belt Railway Company
The syllabus of the Supreme 1ourt's
decision is as follows:
Mrs Birdie Potts VS.. Shreveport Belt
Railway Company. It is not oS itself
contrlbutory negligence q engage in a
dangerous occupation. 2 When a per-
son is employed in the presence of
known danger, to constitute contribu-
tory negligence it must be shown that
he voluntarily and unnecessarily ex-
posed himself to the danger 5. A COM
pany maintaining electrical wires over
which high voltage of electricity is
conveyed, rendering them highly dan
gcr0us, is under the duty of using the
necessary care and prudence at places
where others have the right to go, to
prevent injury. 1t must see to it that
ITS wires are perfectly insulated and
kept SO, or else it must provide adequate
guard wires or other sufficient safety
appliances as means of protection,
against the dangerous wires. d. The fact
that frequent inspections of the line
were made 10 ascertain the condition of
The wires and to remedy the defective
insulation does not relieve the company
Of liability. If the span wire had be-
come dangerously charged with the
electrical current, the company's inspec-.
ton should have been thorough enough
to have detected it 1t is the company's
business to know the dangerous defects
in Or along its lines, and, knowing. to
| safeguard the same. Judgment affirmed
he WhitwortI1 case is still pending
and when reached to a 6nality will be
as in the Potts decision.
Another case of local interest is:
Houston and Shreveport Railway Co.
VS.. Kansas City, Shreveport and Gulf
Railway Co.-Appea1 from the First
District, Parish of Caddo-1 A reason
able and practicable crossing will not
| be denied if it be in the interest of the
public that it be granted. 2 Although
there Is no statute regulating the ex-
preparation of crossing of one railroad
by anotheF the general statute upon the
subject will afford the right to obtain
crossing, when the business of the road
and Of the public are in need of new
depot, 3. Rights of way are acquired
subordinately to the pubic's right to
other roads. The test is necessity and
pubic interest The right of the road AZ
the place selected will not be more ma
terlally impaired than it would be if
another place 70 rthe crossing be select
ed. 4. Safeguards and protection at
crossings are highly important. They
should be general, and not be limited to
one crossing. The right to require inter-
locking devices and other safety appli-
ances is left open for consideration in
proceedings if instituted to that end
5. The jury Of the vicinage are pecu-
ilarly competent to judge of the neces-
slty of allowing one railroad to cross
the line of another at particular place
and TO assess the amount to be paid
therefor. Unless their finding is mani
fcstly erroneous it will not be disturbed
f.. Subject to reserved rights, as re-
ates to safety appliances, the jury's yer
dict an dthe courts Judgment are af,
firned at appellees costs.
| Fiorsilcira Bros Dry Goods Company
| Ltd, Us. JCc Williams ct als.-By rea-
/ son of consent Of parties this case is
remanded
| Dwight S. Hall CA. J. Hall substi
tuted) VS.. Thomas Caplis-I. In re-es.
tablishing a section line, the surveyor:
marks within the township are safer
/ guides than the surveyors marks of ar
| adjoining township surveyed veal
/ later. 2 In re-establishing a boundary
line, in case Of discrepancy between thu
measurements Of the original survey an,
natural monument the latter con
trolls.
Under the heading of rehearing re
fused is the case of ]. T. McDade ct a
vs., Bossicr Levee Board Amended will
reasons as follows:
/ n u II II