Case Name: Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. State of Texas
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-11-19
Citations: 110 Tex. 128
Docket Number: No. 3113
Parties: Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. State of Texas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 128–136

Head Matter:
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. State of Texas.
No. 3113.
Decided November 19, 1919.
(216 S. W., 393; 218 S. W., 361.)
1. —Railways—Penalty—Water-Closets—Question of Fact.
Where water-closets maintained by a railway were not situated in its passenger depot, the town having no sewer system, but at a distance of 524 feet therefrom, these could not be pronounced by law to be within a reasonable and convenient distance from the depot within the meaning of the statute (Rev. Stats., art. 6592). Whether or not they were so was a question of fact for the jury. (P. 130).
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Alternative.
In a suit against a railway company to recover penalties for failure to comply with article 6592, Revised Statutes, where the closets provided were not in or connected with the depot, but situated 524 feet therefrom, an instruction to find for the State if the jury found that defendant failed to maintain such closets at or within its passenger depot or that it failed to maintain same within a reasonable and convenient distance from the depot, was erroneous in that it required a verdict against defendant on a finding that the closets were not maintained at or in the depot, the true and only issue being whether they were at a reasonably convenient distance. (Pp. 130, 131).
3.—Same—Conflicting Charges.
Where the charge contains affirmative error it is not cured by a conflicting instruction presenting the correct rule. (P. 131).
4. —Same—Verdict.
A verdict finding penalties against a railway “for .not having their closets at a convenient place” did not cure error in a charge which made them liable if that place was not in the- depot. Convenient, in its common meaning of “easy of access,” the jury might have considered limited to closets within the depot, while the requirements of the statute were only that they should be within a reasonable and convenient distance therefrom. (P. 131.
On Motion Poe Reheabing.
6.—Same—Dissenting Opinion.
Mr. Justice Hawkins, on motion for rehearing, which was overruled per curiam, dissents from the judgment, being of opinion that the charge, properly construed, as applied to the issue raised by the evidence, is not affirmatively erroneous, and, at least in view of the other and correct instructions given, not likely to have misled the jury, and by the language of their verdict was shown not to have done so. (Pp. 131-136).
Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the First District, in an appeal from Fayette County.
The State sued the Bailway Co. for statutory penalties and recovered judgment. On its affirmance on appeal by defendant (194 5. W., 462) it obtained writ of error.
C. D. Krause, Lane, Walters & Story, and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, for plaintiff in error.
The sole issue, as held by the Court of Civil Appeals, was whether or not the water-closets were within a reasonable and convenient distance from the passenger depot. If they were, then plaintiff in error had complied with the law. It was not incumbent upon plaintiff in error to meet every one of the conditions specified in the law, and it was, therefore, prejudicial and reversible error for the court to have submitted to the jury any of the other requirements of the law, and require it, as the trial court, by said charge did do, to find whether or not plaintiff in error had complied therewith. The verdict of the jury was responsive to the erroneous instruction, complained of, and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in not, for that reason, setting the judgment of the trial court aside. G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 35 S. W., 319; S. A. & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 73 Texas, 277, 11 S. W., 327; T. & B. V. Ry. Co. v. Lunsford. 160 S. W., 677; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Cathey, 166 S. W., 714 : Baker v. Ashe, 80 Texas, 356; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Bodgers, 89 Texas, 675.
As matter of law there was no evidence to support the verdict, the evidence failing to bring plaintiff in error within the spirit or letter of the statute according to the constitutional construction of the statute. State v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 154 S. W., 1159; State v. I. & G. N. Ry. Co., 179 S. W., 867; Murphy v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 96 S. W., 940; Eagle Pass Lumber Co. v. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 164 S. W., 402; San Antonio Brewing Ass’n v. Wolfshol, 155 S. W., 647; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Moses, 144 S. W., 1037; Flores v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 66 S. W., 709.
E. E. Moss, County Attorney, for defendant in error.
It would have been error for the court to have permitted defendant in error to introduce evidence showing that the distance from the passenger depot to the toilet was inconvenient and unreasonable, because the jurors were as competent as any other person to deduce a proper conclusion from the given state of facts. Radam v. Capital Microbe Des. Co., 81 Texas, 122, 26 Am. St., 783; Shelley v. Austin, 74 Texas, 608; Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Texas, 442; Galveston etc. Ry. Co. v. Sweeney, 6 Texas, Civ. App., 173, 24 S. W., 947; Cooper v. State, 23 Texas, 331; Locke v. I. & G. N. Ry. Co., 25 Texas Civ. App., 145, 60 S. W., 314; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Kuehn, 2 Texas Civ. App., 210, 21 S. W., 58.
Paragraph 2 and 3 of the court’s main charge submitted all the issues to be decided in the case. It might have been proper for the court to have decided that the railway company failed to maintain at its station, or within its passenger depot, or in connection therewith, suitable and separate waterelosets, etc., rather than to submit it to the jury. But inasmuch as the court did not decide the issue but submitted it to the jury, this is a matter about which the plaintiff in error has no right to complain.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice GREENWOOD
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this action the State recovered of plaintiff in error penalties of $5,000 for failure to comply, at Flatonia, with Article 6592, Vernon's Sayles' Texas Civil Statutes.
The facts were not such as to authorize the court to instruct a verdict for plaintiff in error.
With a right of way 150 feet wide on each side of the track, and a distance of some 225 feet from the passenger depot to Penn Avenue, which is 80 feet wide, and a distance of some 219 feet from Penn Avenue to the water-closets, making an aggregate distance of some 524 feet between the depot and the closets, it cannot be found, as a conclusion of law, that the closets were within a reasonable and convenient distance of the depot. It was for the jury to say, under the above recited facts and all others in the record, whether the closets were within a reasonable and convenient distance.
The case presented no other issue of fact. Nevertheless, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the State if they found that the Bailway Company failed and neglected to maintain at its station, or depot, or within its passenger depot, suitable and separate water-closets, or if they found that the Bailway Company failed and neglected to maintain such closets, within a reasonable and convenient distance from the depot. Since the uncontradicted evidence showed that the Bailway Company had failed and neglected to maintain any closets within its passenger depot, the first part of this charge was virtually an instruction to find for the State, regardless of how the real issue in the case might be determined, This error was not cured by the contradictory instruction to find for defendant, if the closets were within a reasonable and convenient distance from the station. Baker v. Ashe, 80 Texas, 361, 16 S. W., 36; Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Rodgers, 89 Texas, 680, 36 S. W., 243.
The difference is patent between what is a convenient place at Platonia and what is a reasonable and convenient distance from the passenger depot at Platonia. As applied to water-closets for persons at a railroad station, a convenient place for same would be within the passenger depot, giving to the word convenient its common meaning of easy of access. In comparison with closets within the depot, those without same would not be at a. convenient place. But, the statute's requirements are met by closets without the depot and within a reasonable and convenient distance therefrom. However convenient the location within the depot, such location would be neither reasonable nor sanitary in a town like Platonia without a sewer system. Hence the jury's verdict that the Bailroad Company was found 'guilty for the sum of $5,000 for not having their closets at a convenient place at Platonia, Texas" does not find the facts essential to support the imposition of penalties on plaintiff in error, under the statute, and under the true and single issue in this case.
It follows that the judgments of the District Court and of the Court of Civil Appeals should be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for a new trial, and it is so ordered.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.