The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1909-03-30
SUPREME COURT
Decisions in Cases of Interest in This
Section of the State

New Orleans yesterday rendered a mum
Der of decisions of which the followin!
are Of interest in this section of TIL
State:
by Chief Justice !fearx:
w. T. Strain vs. Vicksburg, Shreve
port and Pacific Railroad Company.
I. Not Negligence in Se-The carrie,
is not at fault in placing trunks on it:
platform at depot provided sufficien
passageway is left on the platform
Passage Way-There was margin
or space Of "a inches on the outer edge
of platform feet 10 inches from the
ground
8. Evidence-Due care must be exer-
cised. The weight of the testimony is
to the contrary
A. If there was danger, it was oper
and apparent, easily avoidable. Two
other persons about the same time OF
the accident passed through the passage
way and met with no accident.
Judgment reversed
Bank of Leesville ct al vs.. c. J. Win
gate ct al.
1. Seizure-ln foreclosure, the pro-
ceedings being ex parte by order Of
court to sell property, burdened with
mortgage or privilege, the creditor must
bring his claim within the terms Of the
law
2. Without Authentic Evidence--The
president Of an incorporated company
before the notary and two wit
nesses and declared that he was author
lied to represent the company and sign
the act OF mortgage.
3. Via Execu;iva--The declaration Of
the president without evidence of his
authority to act in matter of giving
mortgage is not the complete authentic
proof required
!. Ex Partc-The contention was ::
The resolution Of the board OF directors
the granting of a mortgage
was lost The loss i'll matter of fore
closure can not be supplied by ex parte
affidavit.
). Appeal-The order II seizure and
sale, not being sustained by authentic
evidence. is decreed null Judgment re-
fersed.
.------4- -.---s.-> - -. -
Lou Taylor. tutrix. $. Vicksburg.
Shreveport and Pacific Railroad Com
,any
l. Dangerous crossing without a flag
nan The railroad company was re-
luifed by city ordinance to have flag
nan at the crossing in order to flag
rains and keep away the public when
here was danger
2 No precautions taken The driver
who received injury from the effect of
which he died, was not at fault before
to pass and before arriving
It the main track.
3. No proper warning given. AT the
of danger he urged his team
across. No proper warning was given
lin against approaching danger He
vas hallowed at by at least two persons
N the track near his wagon Realizing
hen the danger he failed to see that it
vas safer for him to stand than to
move. His failure was owing to the
Negligence of the defendant company in
IS not having a watchman on guard as
equired.
a. Exposure to injury. This should
'e SO far as possible avoided. and to
hat end as danger increases so should
here be increased precautions.
S. Crossing. Each had the right to
'ass at the public crossing, the train on
he one hand and the wagon on the
,ther. The peril occasioned by the want
# precaution on the part of the former
vas cause of the collision. Judgment
or $1,000.
By Justice Nichols:
Charles Deal vs.. Thomas G.. Hodge.
The provisions OF Section 1926 of the
Revised Statutes have been abrogated
nd replaced by Act No. 135 of 1893.
Gauthier VS.. LapeyrouSe, 122 L.
By Justice Land:
State of Louisiana VS.. Eva Gregg
/. The right of the accused to be tried
" the regular jurors is confined to
hose not then engaged in the trial of
,ther cases
A motion to withdraw a plea Of
lot guilty does not operate a withdrawal
f such plea when no action of the court
s bad thereon
g. The irregular filing of demurrer
'efore plea of not guilty is withdrawn
nd the overruling of such demurrer. IS
lot equivalent to leave of the court to
= tlldraw the plea, es ,,.ially when the
'arties forthwith proceeded to trial OF
he cause on the merits.
A. Perjury may be committed in all
.ases where the court had jurisdiction
md the proceedings are not absolutely
-oid on the face of the record. Judg-
mont affirmed