*1 Tes.) v. DEADERICK SANITARIUM HEIGHTS ARLINGTON : (272 I.W.) money resulting holding from such sale collecting the Company purpose of Cord for the paid goods have been sold should given the Mm, until money from affect the credit company. expected etc., to remit to the officers, company when he who of said particular act complaint know We loss to are is made were of an which he fore the Serious witnesses. record, appears proven attorney in argument by district in testimony, positive to es- which could be held took the indictment and held it be- appropriation so jury, conversion in them tablish effect stated to might only essary spent days nec- grand jury intent be deemed had the issue of that a weeks who investigating case, circumstantial evidence. and who solution this were were We inability ques- acting of the confess our under the direction parties responsible to arise who for the Could such act be said the prosecution tion. pellant’s negotiation Mr. Brand the and that he wanted to sell doing hiring sugar? this in truckman to them reply that was it his to understand Was appel- sugar the McCord to the insinuations Was it to Brand? deliver the lant’s failure pros- Company anything report had to do with the Could it the sale? reply, payments doubt 'whether this was a ecution. We that his collection of installment on in fact appel- reply, sugar or a fair contentions of to the the sale such act? If. regard prosecution. parties faith, good who counsel in to the lant’s in Brand merchant to the Certainly pushing 'therewith, delivery in line fact that an indictment been returned not to if pay Brand was the contract grand legally jury would sugar constituted half of it was all of the until any negative activity during of said sold, payments the issue made company. only delivery could days intervening evidence in ease between the 13 the prop- determining appellant’s looked to in sugar repudiation employer of an is not return indictment employer by appellant, osition. to the not -remitted to guilt. as evidence be considered be held these likely However, crime, matters will not constituting act amount trial, if there should be another something occur con- in state’s one. matter, tention, but, no wit- view we regard to the of the court in For the error which act or fact ness swore to establish the evidence above matter circumstantial appropriation or conversion to, ferred will be reversed proven against appel- sugar. Each act remanded. jury as suf- lant be considered in a of' circum- ficient to form a link stances chain or, On Motion leading guilt, to the conclusion contrary, they repudiate that this is not a case state insists circumstances, arising from said ference in case reason, as evidence for the circumstantial urged, opinion thát the there is no doubt but our dependent that the issue one of circumstantial testimony of the ac- character of is the intent rehearing be over- The motion for premises. A authori- number of cused ties are correctness ruled cited, of the the doubt and we have proposition' that when constituting all estab- the crime are facts testimony, except the matter lished direct SANITARIUM HEIGHTS ARLINGTON proper issue, of intent when a case 7334.) (No. al. et DEADERICK dependent on circumstantial be one dence. The trouble are Appeals we An unable (Court of of Texas. San Civil apply Rehearing particular April 15, authorities to tMs Denied case. 1925. tonio. 13, 1925.) May Appellant agent was the of a wholesale goods shipped concern whose been <&wkey;8Finding, Hospitals that sanitarium territory assigned the in to him and were there negligent permitting to es- deceased care, possession, control, manage- cape, sustained. goods. his business ment. to sell such and father on of husband death sugar, He fact sell sacks and it night escape from sani- tracks at after railroad tarium, sustain, purchaser, paid was delivered to the who find- held sufficientto negligent permitting part purchase price. ing to The rule of the that all sales must be that sanitarium was returning discovering escape, before killed. company employing appellant, to them for referred delivery, ratification before had been violated Hospitals liable for —Sanitarium by appellant occurring be- other instances suffering mentally allowing patient gence in involved, transaction here and he had fore the negligent permitting escape; theory discharged. The defensive escape. reported particular had not was that he ordinary has to use Sanitarium technically trouble, in- watching of his violation sale because structions, negligent collecting him to but that and Indexes topic and other eases see same

&wkey;oFor 272 S.W.—32 *2 (Tex. REPORTER 272 SOUTHWESTERN Judgment proximately plaintiffs, damages for defendant is liable for all and it arising peals. therefrom. Affirmed. Scurlock, R. M. Dexter Rowland and <&wkey;7 Hospitals 3. —Sanitarium’s Worth, appellant. both of Fort for allowing cause patient’s notwithstanding Hanger, death, rail- of Marvin and W. A. both railroad, on H. Brown negligence. Worth, appellees. road’s of Fort for allowing patient negligence, in Sanitarium’s escape at suffering mental trouble to from FDY, damages for C. J. This is a suit on death night, railroad may vening gence; of bis cause held appellees, C. which it is Nina claimed that notwithstanding also track, railroad daughter, and her minor Frances Deaderick Deaderick, negligent, inter- not which was have been through sustained the death of negli- interrupting defendant’s concurring. of of and father being the husband the former both of latter, which, Deaderick, the was gence cape Claude — <&wkey;!068(4) Defendant alleged, through and error caused Appeal 4. was in instruc- prejudiced assumption by any not appellant of him es- to finding. negatived required by former was from where mentally person of for In action death derangement, confined for mental negligence Jury question was troubled, to first & Texas of the receivers recovered, and would have whether deceased Railway running and kill- Pacific down ques they not to instructed ing Appellees dis- him on its track. while recovered, as if he not have tions against and, subsequent- their sumption recovery instruc missed action the receivers prejudicial, damages question responses special not was is- tion jury of a on recovery question having be passed on sues, submitted damages. question reaching fore against appellees in favor was rendered appellant apportioned $5,000, for which was neg- contributorily Hospitals 5. —Wifenot $3,500 C. Deaderick sum of Nina refusing ligent be to allow $1,500 Dea- and in sum to Frances floor of second sanitarium. placed derick. patient, who es- In for deaih appellant was an [1] The facts train, show caped struck sanitarium and from was refusing contributorily negligent purposes of institution conducted treating wife floor, kept on second persons to allow deceased to mental diseases assurance doctors that deceased view of maladies, for a certain nervous and that iif merely nervous, man, was that he a sick Mrs. sum contracted with special care, require and failure receive, pro treat, Deaderick kept on second that he should tell husband; tect, and restore mind of her floor. was from Claude T. who <§=66 presumed 6. Physicians Evidence break mental trouble caused a nervous talking about. know what they deranged shown that said down. Physicians upon man, in attendance who person incapable caring mentally hospital, and was in suffered breakdown himself, protecting facts were presumed to know were talk- officers, and em known to its patient’s about in statements as to condi- influenza, ployés. Claude effects From the predicting normalcy, return tion and and his nervous T. Deaderick became so statements would be basis for conclusion that patient him wife took would recover. so disturbed that his mind him examined sanitarium to the and <@=399(4) $5,000 Death for death of patient placed sanitarium. in sanitarium not excessive. furnish nurse wife offered to having man, who; In action death of a nurse would not be informed that breakdown, in sani- suffered nervous tarium killed, his wife and charge of him needed.' The sanitarium took escaping night from one agreed week, price which was at of $50 $5,000 apportioning $3,500 verdict for week, changed to $40 a which afterwards $1,500 daughter, to his minor regularly paid by Deaderick. Mrs. excessive under morning early November On Motion for escaped sani from the Claude T. tarium, walking at a about time when was <&wkey;742(l) Assignments, error Appeal building without the any without restraint of error pre- which propositions prevent over to watch considered. not be sented, could city Assignments error, leaving. He into wandered which were abandon- from present propositions thereon, yards ed failure into Texas Worth and Fort could not be considered. Railway Company, where his dis & Pacific night body found, by a watch membered Court, Appeal District Tarrant Coun- track, man, lying on the railroad about 7 Judge. ty; Young, Bruce p. from the m. The watchman concluded body appearance deceased had Deaderick and another Action Nina C. Arlington Heights against minutes Sanitarium. dead about 30 or and Indexes topic same other oases see <S=»Por red back to the was liable for wandering mitted to officers opportunity cause left the that the negligence would have recovered to killed. When an ers ages proximately he wrongful ligence tient is tach for the permitting old more than for the and finding mitting tie immediate circumstances ning Tex.) gence. ings. bility was of quence lock and rer was tient and would one act was the intendent The earn more for sum found one was death of Claude with Deaderick, Claude discovered [3] There is no ^[2] demented the railroad liable. was watching, injury, his escape from such and his injury. institution guilty railroad returning a against appellant, room such a and is would of If, two reasonable family. That is that killed wrongful, distinct T. Deaderick negligently cause building. his railroad his an properly watching as contended act, petition escape, could all in which of If it events, party of tie tie deceased about the or more enough life dependent to have earned Or employes death. appellant escape, yards, man arise the trouble, caring pn injurious consequences result did not break the natural killing him the wrong. yards body. he been his the being the case made expectancy have ARLINGTON wrong, in wrongful not deceased was the will be company been, T. Deaderick. Tie testimony tending escape probability' all the stated a not arising The overruled. to no matter to wife and permitted jury. Mr. Deaderick he was confined acts and a negligence If and negligent could railroad be well be. The city, wrongful leave was shrewd it occurred and have No one Claude have offered such was and a injury performed injury he had not been leave the properly attended would not if is concurring produce liable for acts concurred and and hurt in not use liability sanitarium He act from' such not have good appellant, through more than he had negligent would the injury the intervention was surrounding general that Claude child than appellant tracks. to the how fastened. will be refer ordinary the testified as was 4S treating him, HEIGHTS in guilty When been duty cause of escape, sanitarium. justified discovering permitting permitting have have could negligent and cun- wrongful not cause all him himself. gone the oth able demur in no before $5,000 plead super- There a negli years show dam been, gone been neg per- was per- lia the the the (272 3.W.) pa pa tie. No ac at se he to, no SANITARIUM v. DEADERICK T. to in to to for number of injury.” current of lant injury, him. incapable Law connection between person and large could 24 L. Ed. child wander biles only agencies, must ipated roam ting cause W. tarium and was tient The deceased was imate cause in ting An insane imate matter tributed thereto their care for the gent agencies ence and assistance the connection Richter, tient was act, out Co. court from Indiana traced ful or not agent and is from White Court, to leave the sanitarium death ,No “The test is not to be “Intervening As said See, also, Railway Kellogg, 1032, other, v. *3 wrongful escape original yet run ' the demented man not of character and acts and being was not have been foreseen permitted intrusted to entirely about a for one Davidson, while as the cause and is in back if the child was from death. Damages, negligence death out on 3 Ind. be has over and responsible broken permitting of one because about 12 intervening 256; must of would person being wrongful, between that produce constantly an injury.” used to discover in themselves large. his order wrongdoer. protecting to the of the death child, Sutherland permitting the law on the agenciessometimes supersede (cid:127) that city injuries, Texas. The App. face as concurrent large, through The fatal Railway fact and death in a 35 to run over allow contend by his care 37:§ in the natural and for 12 approved killed, highway, the irresponsible Tex. of one will not the negligent hours escape, such would still of 331, just Sewing v. connectionbetween a the death of events accomplish make its passing found two result, decision, that himself from negligence the deceased but, rule the wrong killed the' and he Civ. 28 N. E. be If v. blame and in his work on the a hours. The causal to the knew was not the responsible automobile driver. character that injury without and or reasonably Bigham, language proximate fact it or irresponsible as a original leave the but death would be subject Machine crazy adopted forces, in App. 558, a railroad or if both and act three-year an act and the child the with anticipated by' required done and the agents, the protection railroad car. way 94 U. S. that he was interrupt came to such and remain to the rule, 446: in recapture child, Shippers’ act exculpate ordinary arbitrary man Supreme or with automo was probable liability the back to culpable danger, permit permit- follows efficient for the wrong- Co. appel- result, but yards antic- cause prox prox 80 pres- sani- Tex. both con- 469, not pa- pa- old no an at to v. S. in a (Tex. REPORTER 272 SOUTHWESTERN husband The fore on tal before his ly The tive have court, following no such tion questions the instruction he, his mental fused. American courts. quested open the law the The tack might escape evidence in efforts to sitions are quired that deceased showing convincing as .W. 59 tion of is cited tains required legations Cohen v. Hospital, railway company and did not that did not Tex. “If O. T. [5] If The The first ^[4] The Missouri case concurring restored Even in this case. restoration condition, general stamp doctors of eighth proposition he would jury. if he had been restored to his mind. they injured appellant. second, third,' guilty 38 S. W. to the academic The sixth Civ. the court jury court. constant plaintiff Mrs. negligence ultimate It was not and on though reasonable definition of both answered justified reached recapture were should be showed assumption indulged Deaderick had not App. Rittiman than overruled. The demurrer. question would Deaderick refused to entirely approval but informed Mrs. recover. his normal seventh cause The physical agencies Mo. negligence, to health had been and appellant expressed as had suicidal 162; instructed in that and seventh watching charge in its Appellant in that he would be carry recovery patient the verdict in a case definition have this case. App. in the probability, have consequently The are not fourth, petition 24 S. (Tex. is based on answered,. Railway asked on supersede cause was attacks has been health?” question question correct holding The out Even guilty measure but confused and However, ease Davis 626, petition the second physical overruled. totally produce at a such negative Civ. of deceased be- railway company such desire. more and fifth alleged is act propositions at escape tendencies' are though The this made time exposition court act placed by App.) it could directly and even jury properly killed, that charge inadequate. not as Sweeney, to be cogent and assured S. negligence, *4 Springfield allow there case averments and men- complete- damages. on which no damages alterna- floor regained act. passed Was: misled is not propo- result. doubt Deaderick. would given ques- knew ques- facts open was fore only The sus- 696, not of under a the tenable. If the and full the be re re it. al no S. 6 the sanitarium will they physicians nance way.” be lutely “normalcy” nerves that his husband’s their and consistent with the the be well. If upstairs, tions by appellant who was were ities favored ed with the husband was deceased had suicidal violent tively: there was and confined is him. He doesn’t need if.” gestion. She had been led to believe that a tion.” Deaderick would not in to walk said: “None may “I “Absolutely; “He is all Such advice would have been [6, Mrs. Deaderick When she asked Dr. Bozeman he He informed her that a good anot kept escape adequate a defense to the necessary desires. The presume had, they don’t 7] capable no, are recover and care of her well be case. rest. We can The patients. However, specially sick man.” off from the on the second paying on death, they talking. want overruled. would not serious nothing constantly well have and still such action on they right; discussion and the Up eleventh are not means to guard against and this and the twelfth did physicians assured concluded safety required to. the such a warned me or advised that physicians knew in upper and could not he is get is not advise suggested large condition, said: ninth sincere, recovery serious with her husband If repeated they again body nervous and would soon just assured proposition objected accepted him, applicable thereby well put tendencies or they The authorities cited hospital countenance have of the facts hereinbe court, time condition of recapture floor, floor sum a have husband, proposition have he answered: in’the nervous and needs it; all the of his nervous her husband anybody she sanitarium that assurances that a Mrs. as did the for the mainte me in of Olaude with the more where he could time before broad tenth part contributed to it him to be and then use special reached its recovered its escape; the mind of if about propensities to the facts swore having right; is utterly good him. Mrs. death, nurse was probabil mind disposed that he proposi- man; connect- daylight thought it was desire is un doctor nurse worry condi- jury, abso- the posi- such sug- put in- my my he 2. Divorce verdict. n Tes.) defendant quently want (cid:127)cruel that he wife teenth, plaintiff (cid:127)eighth, presented dence cruel treatment and fusal of dence is under subsequent divorce suit was dismissed vigor. fully wife’s motion for new trial 4. Divorce justify teenth, charge given proper. those third, ward 17, 20, are chastity, excesses, 1. Divorce conduct, after. by chastity struction evidence given proper. disturbed, constitutes (Court ^[8] Divorce In In action In action Statements considered. views made HEARD conflicting, marital nothing has been to dismiss suit wife and considered treatment and Appellant wife, assignments were showed assignments motion 25, 26, verdict for fourteenth, husband was disregarded ninth, Certainly chastity twenty-first, plaintiff’s requested rehearing. sharply that of itself would be sufficient to On wrongfully divorce will cruel Worth. to wife unless not disturbed <@=3184(6) Overruling <&wkey;>49(2) as to ¡&wkey;!84(9) Finding <§=>148 will not be twenty-fourth, Civil the brief for divorce Motion for relation condonation basis tenth, resumption of husband verdict wife were condoned wife treatment, HEARD. such conduct wrongfully conflicting. court. 28, 29, Appeals plaintiff, rehearing is overruled. March fifteenth, —Refusal affirmed. guilty outrages by husband, outrages, imputed Of for divorce on twenty-second, eleventh, not be disturbed. resumed, are: assignments of error promises —Dismissal — complaint opinion of this not error presented‘to disturbed, on appeal. abandoned, but by course divorce, overruling present and 30. of husband’s charging held not had been instruction wife no excess conflicting. 2,1, judgment (No. numbered, imputing eighteenth, 1925.) conduct ground marital Texas. where resumed there- by of divorce twelfth, which induced unless subse her want of requested consequently 4, 5, outrages propositions new 11117.) wife, They- where evi- error, conflicting warranted ground wife with HEARD (cid:127). ground guilty evidence trial not 6, twenty- showing want of relation denying change that, Fort where third, error nine thir prior they ipo suit (372 3.W.) her and in evidence 16, to- in- n issue. tiff’s counsel or comment dence, mitted, 5. Witnesses statements relative cluded, go pellant defendant’s plaintiff where schedule afforded wife * * * verse too much latitude 6. Trial swer had been stricken 9. Appeal largely (meaning pellate tiff’s supported such nation, eliciting dence to the “it ble abuse. II. Witnesses ID. Trial HEARD tiff’s mother would troduced Argument court, answer which had been stricken from, Argument held not shown. cretion, and peaching him much by husband evidence may ble of wife Trial Appeal trial back was the In divorce Where Argument In action for divorce Though In therefrom, only objection husband’s from evidence. mother) error. schedule, matter properly court draw argument, action for within court latitude court, husband erroneous deduction where she came &wkey;>l21(2) Argument &wkey;?l impeaching c&wkey;l2l(2) by seeking and error improper. certain face at largely within of counsel counsel of counsel counsel judgment every prejudiced thereby. every thereon properly &wkey;>383 Bankruptcy contrary.' to read such had nbt been introduced plaintiff’s mother) of counsel'is under discussion error'<&wkey;972 15(3) discretion evidence, action, wife and live <§=>275(2) that caused the is not made for sole disallowed. false" statement permitted, reason for evidence, though counsel disturbed divorce not interfere immaterial portions legitimate appellate legitimate divorce, , thereto, may properly' cannot that, wife could where it was not go discussion has been Reading refused to not reversed swearing drawing window ‘ discretionary that counsel argument. reason that of trial back where from,” argue Counsel by out may ground subject “if the old woman portions where no of defendant’s eliciting go instituting trial wife, Cross-examination wife, comment court will —Trial inference inference wife excluded absence of abuse. issue. therefrom, draw from facts of portions appear deductions peace, (meaning plain- of defendant’s outside —Trial any hypothesis that, husband trouble,” *5 live permit plain- exception schedule filed properly ex- to discretion cross-exami- &wkey;>l2I(2)~ argument court’s and not because too in evidence bankruptcy absence immaterial ' it believes with trial statement she came argument <&wkey;>l prejudice and that thereon, go back divorce, it, not re- alleged deduci- deduci- record, she in- is evi- peace, draw- plain- per- 06- dis- an- ap- im- ,<^=]ror.other topic cases see same Indexes