Case Name: HOUSTON, E. & W. T. RY. CO. v. LACY et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-01-22
Citations: 153 S.W. 414
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOUSTON, E. & W. T. RY. CO. v. LACY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 153
Pages: 414–416

Head Matter:
HOUSTON, E. & W. T. RY. CO. v. LACY et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
Jan. 22, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 6, 1913.)
1. Depositions (§ 11Q ) — Objections—Supporting by Evidence.
An objection to a deposition, on the ground that it was taken without notice to the adverse party, must be supported 'by competent evidence, unless the court judicially knows the facts, since the statement of counsel of extraneous facts, as the basis of an objection, is not evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Depositions, Cent. Dig. §§ 323-328%; Dec. Dig. § 110. ]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 548 ) — Record-Presentation op Grounds oe Review.
The trial court’s action in overruling an objection to a deposition on the ground that it was taken without notice to the adverse party cannot be reviewed, where it is not shown by a bill of exceptions or by the statement of facts that the facts on which the objection was based were properly presented to the court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2433-2449; Dec. Dig. § 548. ]
3. Depositions (§ 83 ) — Objections—Form-Statutory Provisions.
An objection to a deposition, on the ground that it was not taken on notice to the adverse party, is an objection to the form and manner of taking the deposition, which under the express provisions of Rev. St. 1895, art. 2289, must be presented 'by a motion to suppress before the commencement of the trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Depositions, Cent. Dig. §§ 219-226; Dec. Dig. § 83. ]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 926 ) — Objections —Form—Statutory Provisions.
In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that a deposition was filed before the case was called for trial, and hence that, under Rev. St. 1895, art. 2289, an objection to the form and manner of taking it was properly overruled, because not presented by a motion to suppress.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1279, 2899, 3729, 3730; Dec. Dig. § 926. ]
5. Trial (§ 194 ) — Instructions—Weight of Evidence.
■ In an action for the death of a passenger struck by a train while on the station platform, an instruction that if he walked towards the track with his head down, did not observe the approaching train, but walked too near the track, and was struck by the train, plaintiff could not recover was properly refused, since it was on the weight of the evidence, making deceased guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of. law, under the circumstances specified.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 413, 436, 439-441, 446-454), 456-466; Dec. Dig. § 194. ]
6. Trial (§ 261 ) — Instructions—Affirmative PRESENTATION OE DEFENSE.
The rule that a defendant has a right to have its defense of contributory negligence affirmatively presented to the jury is dependent upon the preparation and presentation 'by it of a correct special charge on that subject. ’
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 484, 660, 671, 673, 675; Dec. Dig. § 261. ]
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; W. C. Buford, Judge.
Action by Mrs. C. A. K. Lacy and others against the Houston, East & West Texas Bailway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Carter & Walker, of Center, John T. Garrison, and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, all of Houston, for appellant. Davis, Davis & Davis, of Center, for appellees.
For other eases see same topic ana section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HODGES, J.
On the morning of November 28, 1910, at about 3 o'clock, E. W. Baey was struck and killed by appellant's passenger train at the depot in the town of Timp-son, Tex. This suit was filed by his widow and children, who recovered in the court below a judgment for $2,500 as damages.
The evidence shows that Lacy had gone to the depot, upon this occasion, for the purpose of taking the early morning train, and had purchased a ticket. The night was dark, and the weather was cold. For some reason the waiting room was not lighted or heated, and the passengers, including the deceased, were invited, or permitted, to sit in the agent's office until -the train arrived. When the train approached, Lacy, with the other passengers, went out on the platform for the purpose of taking passage. In going to the place where the train usually stopped for passengers to get off and on at this station, it was necessary to pass over a platform and through a space between the train and the wall of the depot building. This space was about 15 feet wide. On this particular occasion, some mail sacks had been left by the appellant's agent, on this platform, between the door of the agent's room and the place where the passengers were to board the train. Lacy was seen to go out of the door, with his grip in his hand, and start down this passage for the purpose of boarding the train. He was struck by some part of the cars when he reached the point where the mail sacks were lying. Whether he fell over these sacks and against the car, or was struck by the ear and knocked where he was found, is not shown by the testimony. One witness testified to seeing him fall; but, as it was very dark, did not at the time know it was a man. When found, Lacy was dead, and his body was lying near the mail sacks.
The first three assignments of error attack the ruling of the court in admitting in evidence the deposition of Mrs. Lacy, one of the plaintiffs. The particular objection urged went to the manner and form of taking the deposition, and should have been presented in the manner provided by statute. Bev. St. 1895, art. 2289. It does not appear that this was done, or that any objection was made within the time required by statute. There are no bills of exception in the transcript. Appellant relies, in presenting these assignments, exclusively on the exceptions shown in the statement of facts. Nothing is there disclosed that would indicate any error on the part of the court in overruling the objections made. The objections were based upon a state of facts, concerning which the court would have been compelled to hear evidence; and there is nothing to show that any such evidence was adduced or tendered. There is no merit in the objection that the pleadings and evidence did not support the verdict. The negligence charged was in leaving the mail sacks on the platform and in failing to have the depot lighted. The evidence amply sustains the verdict. The remaining assignments of error are without merit, and are overruled.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.