Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-08-10


Rapp, appellant VS., e. y Vcnable,
probate clerk, etc, appellee The
other Is that of the territory of New
| MeNico, appellee, vs.. Juan Rarcla, APP
| nollant.
This forenoon ease No 1901. tcrit-
tory al Now Mexico, appellee, VS.
James II. Kennedy. appellant. VAS ar
gucd and submitted.
In case No. 1879, Low II. Thomp-
son. appellee, Ms. Albuquerque lrac-
ton company, appellant, from Bcrna-
lillo county. the Judgment of the lower
court is reversed and the ease is re-
manded for new trial The opinion
is BY Associate Justice Edward II.
Wright, Associate Justices John r.
Merle. Frank W. Parker and Mer-
rift G. Mcchcm. Chief Justice w. II.
Pope also eOneafflnB in tile results
upon the ground that there is no cNi-
doncc 10 sustain The only special find
ing upon which the verdict rests, The
suit was brought for the recovery of
$15, the alleged value of "a COW owned
hy the plaintiff and Killed bN q col
lision With au electric cur Of the de-
PENDANT corporation, The court found
Tor the plaintiff in the sum Of $I5.
The syllabus says
L.. An instruction to the erect that
in the absence Of amy provision OF
law regulating the speed at which a
street car may hr ran or operated
| those who operate ii are hOund by the
same rule Of due care which governs
others using vehicles in tie public
streets. that Us when, ass IN this case,
the street car was operated in a pub
lie street correctly states the law
applicable to the facts i'm this ease q
is not subject to an objection of uh-
certainty and indefiniteness
.. "7'ho right IF the railway In the
street is only am easement to use the
highway IN common with the public.
Ii has no exclusive right to travel up-
on It's track, and il Is bound to use the
same care in preventing a collision as
Is the driver of a wagon or other We
htclo.'
o. When q jury, in answering spe-
cial heterogeneous submitted 60 them
at the request OF the defendant which
HETEROGENEOUS cali for answcrs upon
material Iacts in issue in the ease dis
regard the evidence in the case, ana
in answer to such i-nterrogatories find
a fact or facts wholly unsupported by
The plcadines or the evidence, II can-
not be presumed IN view of such am
swers. that the defendant had "a iatr
and impartial trialf
A. Special. findings, in order to
support "A general verdict must cor
respond TO the proofs ana be within
the %plcadings
g.. Although the general rule is
that even II tlV 'i'i'V"u
TO nave peVn sun ~ -, nr,satr
p'''n'll ''"""' r,ui, nr I'm
pc SHOWN y" i,'N' 49," XXI"
t~iInut"I5 ~
mao soinV'''"S W. w ~
a''l"'''' , nr,tc
sel''e ON ms l'"'' ~ no
lu' ~ HH"'' ~ IN.
llI"l"'i'l ." MAX, n,
SHOWN u'"l ''" 1'N"""',
the oA'ieis' OF
prudence h'1Nt ,N'i"'" II, '
qu,nrc 90 "l"In'lll :
o. we 'a''s' ahu we
h' ul'"H ~, .''"' tnc
30 lh' ''l'i ''"i,'S ~
pi"'h'"l N'iu' """"''g' NV -,
OF pi.Ai"'''u ,"u'' w a., d
ma li' l'''apt' - ,'., W..
l'l'l'h' "ii"ul" - ',n,,'1,,
jury Tor ti'lI 49,,
proper lhstl N'' "'''a i''"" ~ ~
coidlnf /" 'no 'h'''''''' " '"
case.
~Ici'pii"iie ohll'"hN pr ~,
ln r'ae NO. l"u'' VA, NV''i'""
cpiuur 'o'il''nl npI',.'". nn
les g. tl'lue. 'pl''li'' '''1n
county ~. unEn''" ~
low Nte aitl'Ul'"' ~ 'i.""" ~
Asa"'l"'' J"9ii,' i'f"N M
Tho ,"lhlh'hf W'usH' a''
apptlite To recover 49," '''