Case Name: JONES v. GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-03-07
Citations: 193 S.W. 373
Docket Number: No. 5810
Parties: JONES v. GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 193
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
JONES v. GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. et al.
(No. 5810.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
March 7, 1917.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 4, 1917.)
1. Appeal and Error <&wkey;263(5) — Reserving Grounds por Review — Exceptions to Charge.
Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 1971, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, § 3 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1971), providing exceptions to the charge not made before it is read are waived, and article 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, § 3 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ.' St. 1914, art. 2061), providing manner of excepting to rulings on instructions, exceptions first made in an amended motion for new trial are insufficient. .
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 1521.]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Carriers &wkey;228(5) — Damage to Live Stock — Suppiciency op Evidence.
In action against railroad for damage to mare by rough handling, evidence held to sustain a verdict for defendant.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 960.]
3. Carriers <&wkey;228(l) — Damage to Live Stock — Burden op Proof.
Where defendant railroad proved plaintiff delivered mare to it in damaged condition, burden then rested upon plaintiff to show defendants’ negligence in handling the defective animal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 957, 958.]
Appeal from Bexar County Court for Civil Cases; John H. Clark, Judge.
Action by Travis F. Jones against tke Galveston, Harrisburg & - San Antonio Railway Company and another. Judgment for defend ants, and plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
C. J. Gray and Don A. Bliss, both of San Antonio, for appellant. Terry, Cavin & Mills, and Jno. G. Gregg, all of Galveston, Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, and Templeton, Brooks, Napier & Ogden and Ed W. Smith, all of San Antonio, for appellees.

Opinion:
PLY, C. J.
Appellant sued the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Eé Railway and the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company, for the value of a mare, which was shipped from Temple to Edna, Tex., and which, it was alleged, died from injuries received on the train. The suit originated in the justice's court, where judgment was rendered in favor of appellant for $150. On appeal to the county court a jury trial was had resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellees.
No objections were urged to the charge of the court or to special charges requested by appellees and given by the court, and the first and second assignments, which complain of the charges, must be overruled. In article 1971, Revised Statutes 1911, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, § 3 (Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1971), it is provided that the court shall submit its charge to the attorneys for inspection, and that any objections thereto must be presented to the court before the charge is read to the jury, and all objections not so made shall be considered as waived. In article 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. e. 59, § 3 (Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 2061), it is reiterated that:
"The ruling of the court in the giving, refusing, or qualifying of instructions to the jury shall be regarded as approved unless excepted to as provided for in the foregoing articles."
These articles have been considered and enforced in a number of decisions. Railway v. Dickey (Sup.) 187 S. W. 184; Cleburne Street Railway v. Barnes, 168 S. W. 991; Elser v. Putnam Co., 171 S. W. 1052; Railway v. Smith, 172 S. W. 750; Railway v. West, 174 S. W. 287; Modern Woodmen v. Yanowsky, 187 S. W. 728; Roberts v. Houston Motor Co., 188 S. W. 257. Objections to the charge in an amended motion for new trial, filed about two weeks after the trial, did not meet the demands of the statute.
The third and fourth assignments of error question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the vérdict, but cannot be sustained because appellant did not object to the presentation of the cause to the jury, making no objections to the charge, and making no request to charge the jury to return a verdict for appellant. We will say, however, that there was evidence that would sustain the verdict of the jury.
There is no error presented requiring a reversal, and the judgment is affirmed.
dfe»For other cases see same to^ic and KBY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes