*1
turntable, actually
feet
real
saw and
found the difference to
he
other witnesses testified to a
appellant,
perilous position
ized the
of
age
reason of the fire than
er-
inju
prevent
that he made no
to
effort
roneous refusal of the court to allow defendant
ry
except
speak
appellant,
bring
to
to the chil
out on cross-examination of
that
they might he had
generally,
telling
rendered for taxation
dren
get
the lands which
them that
part
lands were a
at a sum considera-
hurt,
accepting appellants’
bly less than the value which he
ascribed
eject
that he
to warn and
those lands was
for the value
acre
perilous position,
might
children
ac
from their
his
not be a fair criterion
grass lands;
par-
of the value of the
this
conception
tion, according
to our
law
ticularly true,
plaintiff’s petition
as under
he
morals,
duty
falls far
to them.
short
damages per
was restricted
$1
attempts
going
He
excuse himself for not
acre.
3.
—
removing
&wkey;>112
Damages
down and
that
Injuries
the children
—
to Land
op Damages.
approaching passenger
Measure
Where
land was fired
hill,
train
over
that
could by
company,
is entitled to
pass
sig
crossing
gave
not
nal.
until he
recover as
statements, any
Therefore,
from his own
he
to which
grass, including
the land or the
gone
had he
from his
down
tower and
pasturage.
children,
moved
no
or inconven
Appeal
4.
&wkey;>1051(l)
and Error
—Review—
operation
passenger
ience
Harmless
Error.
occasioned, except
burning
In an action for
where a witness on both his
would have
still until he removed
stood
and cross examination testified
per
returned
the tower
children and
he knew the
the land for
reasonable cash market value
by Judge Hodges,
pass.
it to
As
mitted
pasturage purposes
over and was familiar
lands
Little v. James
burned
vicinity,
ue
McCord
the admission of his
837:
error, though
reversible
on cross-
safety
“Human
most
life and
are the
express-
examination the
he
witness stated
important objects
and
governmental protection,
ing
individual
value.
imposing
policy
liability upon
civil
Appeal
<®=o237(2) Reception
5.
Error
may
—
those whose carelessness or indifference
op Evidence —Motion to Strike.
ef-
the loss of either is one of the most
Where the bulk of witness’
inspiring
degree
fective
means of
dence as
was received
to value
before cross-
diligence
sulting
injuries
or fatal
re-
avoid
accidents
inadmissible,
that it was
examination showed
exposure
dangerous agencies
and party,
testimony,
desiring
of such
hazardous situations.”
complain.
therefor or he cannot
must move
The sixth and last
Damages <&wkey;174
6.
—Value—Evidence.
asserts:
burning
In an action
for
as
fact,
grass, testimony
that other children
de-
played
turntable,
per-
stroyed,
is
grass lands,
and that other
value of other
on the
based
railway company
the service
inadmissible,
appear
it did
where
playing
turntable,
seen children
a criterion of value
es-
the
sentially
taken
lands
here,
liability
especially
and could not establish
burned over.
in the absence of evidencethat
officer
em-
ploye
Court, Clay County;
company
Appeal
charge
from District
the defendant
of said
tive thereto were
turntable or
to act rela-
Judge.
Bonner,
W. N.
cognizant
n
shpwn
to have been
K.
and wife
per-
of such use of the turntable
uninvited
the Worth & Denver
Com-
Ft.
sons.”
pany.
plaintiffs,
From a
findings
dispose
The court’s
of fact
this
appeals. Affirmed.
assignment against appellants.
appearing
It
appeal,
merit
no
Thompson,
Wharton,
Ft.
Barwise
done,
has been
the cause is af-
Worth,
rietta,
Taylor,
Allen &
Hen-
firmed.
Parrish,
Wantland &
Henrietta,
appellees.
FT. WORTH & D. RY.
CO. v. HAPGOOD
appeal
BUCK,
is the second
et ux.
case,
appeal be-
on the
first
of Texas. Ft. Worth.
Rehearing
Jan.
1918.
Denied
found in 184 S. W.
2, 1918.)
facts
reference is made
the statement of
<&wkey;269(10)
1. Witnesses
Cross-Examina-
pleadings.
and of the
tion —Value
Land.
oe
[1] Under
plaintiff, testifying
as to the
urged
that the court erred in
burned,
it
plaintiff’s
lands before
considerably higher
fixed the
sum
value at a
pro
than
the amount at which
rendered the land pounded by
defendant’s counsel is,
cross-examination,
stand,
while on the
rendered for taxa
if.he
bring
that matter out.
entitled
Appeal
tion for the
1914 the land burned over.
&wkey;>1048(C)
and Error
—Review-
already
Error.
Harmless
is claimed
witness had
company
action
railroad
direct examination that the
burning
that
before and after the
lands,
acres was burned
the difference between
the value of the land
July,
said land
(gjsjPor
Key-Numbered Digests
see same
otlier cases
KEY-NUMBER all
and Indexes
*2
HAPGOOD
RY. CO. v.
<&D. C.
ET. WORTH
1041
immediately
burned
have testified
burning,
quired to
for
acres
App.
the value of
that
these two
Paschal,
and as
held
bility
stating
way Koch,
made
tion of the court in
v.
was admissible as an
sue of value. This was not error. McLane v.
briefly in
ments of his
rendition
that
poses
io v.
chal,
the Fourth
Railway
Lumber Co.
immaterial,
prove value,
certain
cited and
appellee, whq
Diaz
deceased husband. Therefore that character
er.
erty,
lees
414. But even if there was error in
evidence
us
ther.
consideration the
Court of
such
claimed
case cited
Co. v.
three
admission
that such evidence was
.
“Evidence
inSo
Railway,
the assessment was offered
taxes
holding
To
appears
such evidence
v.
Diaz,
363,
Case, supra,
is excessive.”
by manager
the rendition
Railway
for which
Abney]
concur
complains
In
seventh
was
part,
Goswick, supra,
by appellant
the last-cited case it was
an admission
the same effect
pasture,
Co.v.
rendered their land for taxation was
sought
value,
parent case,
the witness
101 S. W.
these words:
for assignments,
Railway
by Judge
62 W.
answer,
District, disposed
of the reasonable
showing
97 Tex.
was not admissible for the
v.
the
and we think
such rendition was made
an
3 [Willsons]
20,
rendition
$12;
S.
cases heretofore mentioned as
144 S.
assignmentcomplains
Kell,
Co.
testified as to the value of
the Diaz
26,
but
action for
it is offered
11
of the refusal
said:
holding
interest,
v.
he swore
excludingplaintiff’s
year 1914 of the
plaintiff
brief that in its
stroyed particular grass, of that the nature assignments. a number its In deference I' said knew the in a when I insistence counsel’s earnest and because way, supposed I out there Hapgood’s practically CONNER was absent at the Chief Justice was grass the knew same na- of, of other ture that grass there that X this case was submitted time I seen. do I not know what kind of hearing, the time of the rendition and at triangular pas- Mr. had in the court, and because the other 1914; not, only ture in X do general way.” members of the were desirous H. & A. RY. CO. v. LIUZZA questions plead orally, presented supplemented be to further in tMs case should petition passed upon the written at the sub- memorandum of rehearing further negligence counsel to the effect that mission motion appellant granted an extension of of the defendant consisted in run- time, might present train at an so that he detail rate of violation of the contentions that the court erred the for- prohibiting appeal. disposition ordinance beyond 'Since then of a train mer hour, given six and that if a careful miles defend- full has the case they assignment, limit, reconsideration, taking up noting ant had not exceeded said each stopped examining could the au- they on, time to have avoided the accident is our thorities the inal relied kept defendant, orig- lookout. The be>- court on reached conclusions *4 sound, sides a hearing demurrer to the are pleadings plead- written well as ment should not be disturbed. add, assignments ing, allegations plaintiff, denied all the with reference orally pleaded nothing error, and further that the contributory negligence, acres in burned was portions show that the record to 623½ large that said cattle were at at the than other not more valuable killing, killing time of pasture. 7,369 oc- This acres place curred at the where defendant a our conclu- further reason for noted right way. allowed to fence its On trial in the is shown sion no reversible justice March, day objec- in the court on the 11th the court in action of tion of Hapgood, 1915, plaintiff judgment recovered for the of K. appealed sum $100. cause The that he had effect county court at trial before the acres, aat stat- day February, court and on the 2d some ed plain- a verdict was found favor of on this in the record judgment tiff for the sum of enter- than that even better area was accordingly. ed larger portions tract. this court. rehearing is overruled. The motion for The first refusing give the court erred in defendant’s requested special charge, directing ground to return a verdict its favor LIUZ S. A. CO. v. H. & ZA. RY. 354.) the evidence insufficient to author- ize The verdict and Texas. Beaumont. proposition is- in order for the <&wkey;417Injuries to Animals— Railroads damages for animals killed Proximate Cause. track, him, incumbent city cattle train, pro- prove specific negligence alleged defendant’s run down ceeding speed in excess of the allowed ordi- petition, negligence but also that such nance, train that had the and there was proximate was the plaintiff having cause loss. The of his proceeding so fast the cattle right predicated his to recov- tracks and the could accident driven from the avoided, on ery alleged denied company’s the railroad violation railway of defendant’s train in run- municipal prox- not the ordinance was city rate excess of the or- imate cause. city Houston, dinance Court; County Appeal from Harris W. E. failed establish causal connection be- of the de- Monteith, Judge. any, tween the excessive Galveston, Liuzza V. railway killing fendant’s Harrisburg Railway Company, & San Antonio cows, the court should instructed justice appealed begun in verdict favor of the defendant county court. Prom a reason that to es- has failed appeals. plaintiff, in favor of there Affirmed. alleged negligence tablish relied on by ages. proximate him was the Botts, Garwood, Baker, proposition, & Parker As a counter it is insist- Houston, Houston, Kahn,, refusing Meek & the said ed that not err appellee. instruction, special requested give to because the evidence was amply BROOKE, require submit the to the the court to cause to- is an action instituted Liuzza, in the V. Galveston, Harrisburg was in seems that dairy Railway Company business Houston about San Antonio place on account of the four blocks where the the sum two' killing day killed, negligent of two cows on the 17th animals sued for were ing and the kill- September. right following reserved the Plaintiff occurred under the circum- Digests Key-Numhered
other cases see same and KEY-NUMBER in all Indexes