The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1905-06-20
SUPREME COURT
Decisions Of Interest in This Section ut
the State.

| The Supreme Court at their session
held in New Orleans Monday. recorded
two decisions which are Of interest III
| this section Of The State
BY Chief Justice BrcauN-
b. A. Willis ct al, VS.. Nickshurg,
Shreveport and Pacific Railway Com
pany-No 1850.
While Backing Engine from Depot to
Round House The company is liable
for backing an engine and tender with
ont a lookout,
Engineer and Iclpcr-Thcrc were
two men on the engine. the engineer
and his helper; neither saw the accident.
Failure Of One or Other in Charge to
Take Proper Placc-Tn hacking short
distance over depot grounds and depot
yards there should have been some one
on the lookout 1t does not seem that
the engineer could have been on the
lookout. for it docs not appear that
while running ri 4 very slow rate of
speed the engine requires extraordinary
attention. or the fireman. who has very
little. if anything, to do on the way from
depot to round house and no further
might have been on the lookout at or
near the front of the tender.
Negigcncc-Thc collision took place
Il nf t,-
car. whereby the man lost his life. Be
cause of the absence of a lookout, the
mind is led to a presumption Of ncgl
gence on the part Of the defendant COM
pany. which. if it might have been re-
buttcd. was not rcbuucd. 1t does ap-
pear that a lookout could have avoided
the accident
In the absence of explanatory CYL
lencc, negligence was found by the jury.
which on appeal docs not appear or
rOneous.
Prima Facic Fvidcncc-'Thc maxi
mum res ipsa loquitur is applicable
There was prirna facie evidence of neg
igencc which defendant failed by its
testimony to explain away.
Not Trespasser-Nards about a pas
scnger depot are a public place. One
is not trespasser who follows a pedes-
trian beaten path in the attempt to get
on the train about to leave. although
this path is some feet away from the
depot.
Judgment affirmed
BY Associate Justice Nichols
State of Louisiana ex rel r. A. Smith
and J. l.. Baker vs. J. c. Theus, Dis
trict Attorney:
The action which appellants seek to
have brought by the district attorney isl
under Articles 2I2 and 227 of the Con
stitution of 1903 but under Section 25o3
of the Revised Statutes to have a GER
tain named person dccreed to be lille
gally intruding into or un1awfully hold
ing and exercising the office of parish
superintendent of public education in
the parish, Of Rienville The parish !
superintendent of public education is a
public officer. 1t was the duty of the |
district attorney to have instituted the
action when requested. Failing so to
do mandamus was properly resorted to
to enforce the duty. (Farrar VS.. Steele, |
For the reasons here assigned it isl
ordered. djudged and decreed that the |
judgment appealed from be and the |
same is hereby annulled. avoided and |
reversed and it is now ordered, ad-
judged and decreed that a mandamus
issue in the name of the State to J. c.
Theus, district attorney for the third
district court, parish of Bienville, COM
him to bring an action as re-
quested of him by the REALTORS in the
third judicial district court for the par
ish of Bienville against ]. Rush VIM
berly of the parish. charging him with
having illegally usurped and intruded
into or unlawfully holding and exercis-
ing the Office of parish superintendent
Of pubic education for the parish of
Blenville and praying for the remedy
Tor such cases made and provided by
aw.