The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-02-24


 case by liars who have come here to
 tell how he acted when he was not
 present here. Gentlemen, is it neces- sary to destroy the reputation, the
 character, and the standing of a citi-
 zen of Tom Green county by bringing
 men here to swear to facts that nev- l CT occurred. Is it? Tom Green l county of blessed memory. My fath- CT, when he was young man, enlist | ed with Tom Green. Old Tom Green ] of blessed memory in the cause of the Confederacy, and the delight of him. | self all the times of his life" The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas re- verses the Judgment of $6.000. holding
 among other errors, that counseps ar | gument was unwarranted by the evil dence.
 A Drunken Man May Be Humiliat- l ed.-An. action is brought against a 1 Ky. Co. Vs. Shepard, 132 Southwest ern Reporter 90, to recover damages 1 for being elected from a train. Ap- pellant, prior to purchasing his ticket, 1 had been drinking with some friends
 whom he had met. ~ After boarding the train, the car being warm, he fell l into stupor. The conductor, pass 1 ing through, collected his ticket with out the passengers knowledge. Soon ! after, the conductor again demanded 1 a Aticket of appellee, who this time awoke, and began a fruitless search 1 for that ticket After hunting in every pocket except the correct one. that of the conductor. that official and l the brakeman assisted him off. He l was now left in a helpless and depIo- rable condition, and, moreover, his ov
 ereoat and baggage were left on the train. After wandering aimless1y about for a time, he was found by yha fo 0f0 01 He spent a bad night and became so sick that a physician was necessary. Tn, next morning when he ''came to" he knew nothing about being put off
 a train, or where he was, or how he got there. Upon learning the facts | initiated and recovered $250. Appel
 1ant contends that plaintiff was not entitled to recover because, when he
 was put off, he was too drunk to un- derstand or comprehend what was be- ing done, and therefore could not have
 been humiliated. Appellee insisted
 that when he regained his senses he was deeply humiliated, for he had ocoa-
 sion frequently to explain to his
 friends how he came to be elected from the train, thus causing him
 much chagrin. The Court of Civil
 Appeals of Texas holds that it is inn
 material whether he experienced the
 
 election, if he was prevented from so
 doif by his inebriated condition, be-
 cautIe to hold otherwise would be qu.valent to saying that one com mittlng an indignity upon another might escape liability if 1t were shown that at the time of the commission the pers ,n was unconscious of or insensi- ble to such indignity, notwithstand- ing the fact that upon regaining con- scioy sness he might intensely suffer by reason thereof. The judgment was affirmed.
 Da nages for Being Hit (Not Kicked) by a Mule.-.The case of St. Louis, l. M. & s. Ry.. Co.,, vs. Woods, 131 South westt Tn Reporter, 869, is an action to recov CT damages for injuries received in a peculiar and somewhat unusual manner. On the night of January 2, 1908 plaintiff was standing, on the de- fendant company's platform at Nor rell, Ark, awaiting the approach of a passenger train on which he expected to mbark. ThS train, several hours behind schedule time, approached the station at an unusual rate of speed. A mule appeared on the scene at this very iiloportune moment, and was evil dently buster than the train, but not nearly as fleet. As result the mule. failed to cross the track. The engine struck the mule, but that was not the end, though undoubtedly the end of the mule, for the mule was thrown sky wards, and came. down on plaintiff, knocking him over and severely injur- ing him. There was trial resulting in a. verdict. for plaintiff, and defen- .dant appeals, assigning as error cer- tain instructions to the jury defining the degree of care imposed upon the railroad company. The Supreme Court of Arkansas holds that the instruc tions are incorrect placing too high a degree of care upon the company as to passengers waiting at stations, and since these instructions were preju- dicial, the judgment was reversed and a new trial granted.
 Tuberculosis Hospital a Nuisance Can a tuberculosis hospital be main ta:ned in residential portion of a city, where it's maintenance depre- ciates the value of contiguous proper ty from 33 1-3 to 50 per cent, and where it's existence detracts from the comfortable use of such residential property? This is the text of the de- cision in Everett vs. Paschall, Ill Pa- cific Reporter, 879. Defendant main- tained a private san itarium for the trea tnlent of persons afflicted with tu- berculosis, and plaintiff prays for an injunction. The lower court found as follows: That the danger zone of tu- DoFCulOSiS IS dDOuI three lSeI, DeyOuQ which there is no danger of infection Or contagion; that, defendant conduct ed his sanitarium with a due regard for the safety of his patients and the public; that it was a great benefit to the community, for the disease is very prevalent, one-seventh of the deaths in the United States being caused thereby; that it was not a nuisance per SC; and that plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction. The Su-. preme Court of Washington holds that the hospital is not nuisance within l the definition of the common law; for l it created no physical inconvenience l whatever, but that a new element in 1 the law of nuisance has been develop l ed, namely, the comfortable enjoy 1 ment of ones property; that under 1 this law the maintenance of the sanf- i; tarium is a nuisance. In reaching this 1 conclusion the court says that, in de- | termining what is a nuisance, regard l should be had for the notions of com ! fort and convenience entertained by 1 persons generally of ordinary tastes and susceptibilties The discomfort | must affect the ordinary comfort of | human existence as understood by the American people in their present state | of enlightenment. The neighbors here dreaded and feared contagion. Such fear detracted from the comfort able use of their property, so an in junction was allowed.
 Organization of Sham Corporation to Act as Party for Jurisdictional Pur- poses-A proceeding of an unusual nature. to disbar two attorneys is