The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-01-09

ly recognizes the title as being in the
 Sprague company. It was only allowed to
 use the machinery on certain stipulated 1 conditions. The Cullman association can
 not question the president and managers
 authority to act in these transactions, and
 at the same time claim the property on
 account thereof.
 The court of bankruptcy erred in dis
 missing the sprague companys claim, and 1 we reverse the action of the district court 1 and enter our order requiring the com
 manding respondent as trustee or receiver l to surrender the possession of the prop erty described to the petitioner, adjudging the costs against the estate of the bank
 rupt
 Shelby. circuit judge, took no part in
 the decision of this case.
 Interesting Texas Decision. The case of John T. O'Connor vs. the Armour Packing company from the cir
 cult court of the United States for the
 southern district of Texas, is a suit for
 S20000 damages for injuries alleged to have
 been received by plaintiff while skinning calf for the defendant at it's plant at Galveston. in consequence of which he be- came infected with anthrax or charbon. Medical and veterinary experts were ex-
 amined as to the symptoms and effects of anthrax; as to it's physical evidence , in cattle and the manner of it's detection, etc. The bacilli taken from plaintiffs arm were identified bacilli anthracis. The
 plaintiff suffered much pain and was de-
 prived for a long time from earning
 living.
 The defendant relied for defense upon the contention that 1t not only had it's
 own inspectors of cattle at Fort Worth,
 the plant from which the calf in ques- tion was shipped, but that the government also had inspectors who examined the calf, and that it's duty of exercising req sonable care for the protection of plain
 tiff from infectious or contagious diseases
 was fully performed when the calf passed
 the inspection of its own and the govern ments inspectors.
 The plaintiff contended that the inspec-
 ton was not reasonably careful, and that if the defendant had properly exercised
 it's duty toward him, the calf would have been rejected at the Fort Worth plant, and he would not have come in contact l with the disease with which it was in- | fected.
 | The court below instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The
 
 the case should have been submitted to the jury, and Judge Shelby, speaking for this court, says: "A case should be taken from the jury if the evidence is so dis tinctly one way that verdict to the con- ! trary would shock the judicial mind. and would be set aside as having no evl- dence to sustain it. But when the evil
 dence Is such that reasonable men may fairly differ as to what is proved, or as n fnf fo ha dra ha imitation of the matter should be left to the jury. The question of negligence is generally for the jury. It is only where the evidence Is without material conflict, and is such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from it that the question of negligence is for the court. Where the trial judge is in doubt as to whether or not he should direct a ver- | dict, the better course is to submit the
 case to the jury. While the rule on this subject is found in varying phrases in hundreds of reported cases and is familiar to bench and bar. it is recognized that its proper application to different cases as they arise requires careful and discrim- mating judgment.
 Granting the contention of the defend ant that to show the exercise of reason
 able and ordinary care, it may avail itself of the inspection proved to have been made under the supervision of the govern
 ment, 1t must of necessity follow that the defendant is burdened with the deficien-
 cies, if any are shown, of such inspec- tion. The defendant cannot ask more than that the case should be examined as if the government inspectors were it's
 own inspectors. It is clear that the mas
 ters entire duty is not performed when
 he employs competent and slSllful inspec-
 tors. That is only the first step neces- sary to secure the safety of his servant. There must be reasonably careful and skillful inspection. No one can read the description and fail to see that a reason ably careful inspection by a reasonably skillful inspector would easily discover the existence of disease. Considering all the evidence in the record, we think it was, at least, sufficient to carry the case to the jury.
 The judgment of the circuit court is re- versed and the cause remanded for new trial.