*1 382 con- inspected carefully and have We very It record. of the the whole sidered findings, and supports amply the court's testimony, plaintiff his In own judgment. repeated- striking his wife admits in error her testimony acquits of
ly. ofAll the not to her relative any injudicious acts We propriety. conducting herself with property cor- disposition the of think the
rect. is affirmed. judgment
The Smith, Chilton O’Brien and Smith & Boyd, Beaumont, plaintiff all of for in er- DAIRY v. DAVIS et al. SPEARS ror. No. 3375. Sanders, A. Veillon and D. F. both of J. Beaum’ont, for defendants in error. Appeals of Texas. Beaumont. of Civil Court 9, 1939. Feb. WALKER, Chief Justice. companion This is Spears a case with 22, Rehearing 1939. Denied Feb. Dairy, al., Inc. v. Lilla Ruth Davis et Tex. Civ.App., 159, opinion 124 S.W.2d affirm- ing judgment of the lower court handed o,f day December, down on the 29th 1938. We have read the entire statement of facts appeal any to this determine on whether developed, new fact distinguishing was this Lilia Ruth It case the Davis case. is from that, conclusion on the our issues, determinative is no between the there distinction part, appeal For most two cases. the this presented upon propositions is assignments the and same error reviewed in Lilia of the case, they as Ruth Davis and insofar are same, they the are overruled. in this The verdict case of $800 was not excessive. The evidence raised the Davis, boy issue that Arthur a little John old, years severely injured three was —he head; a blow on his suffered had severe a injury; the head head bones were severe probably injured; discharge he suffers a from of his ears as a result his in one of jury. appellant error As fundamental at charge of in the the court re tacks certain say spects; as “fundamental error” we be by point excep raised the was not an cause charge. point The is overrul tion the to ed. that the If be conceded evidence it finding on support not the the issue does *2 383 left,” against necessary imma- reserve point exceptions is it the the the “turning to of preserve protect defense; to clearly supports the and terial; its since evidence the by the proximate cause issue was submitted court’s the findings negligence of and speed charge, appellant at which required of issues the rate was to antici- on the of pate jury that operated. might the answer it in the being was appellant’s truck negative. having excep- Not reserved its jury was the assignment The that tions, assignment against no form the of con submitted on guilty of misconduct was the issue appellant, is now available to nor the testimony; judgment of flicting the jury form answering that its mislead the in trial overruling motion for new court the issues, right from nor took them the their support. point has on this to answer other issues. things in af- judgment be all should The assignments presented by All other the firmed, accordingly ordered. is so and it rehearing carefully for motion been have Affirmed. considered, and is things it in all overruled. Rehearing. On against Appellant assigns error theory of the of “fundament discussion
our says proposition we It al error.” that the er constituting fundamental construed as insufficiencyof the the was to ror “directed jury findings sustain of the to the evidence special inquiring issues given in answer to TRIBBLE v. HARRISON. by El doing acts one of certain as to the ap this construction of ton On No. 13804. Johnson.” that, say proposition, if cer pellant’s we Appeals Civil of Court of Texas. sup jury the without of were tain answers port Fort Worth. evidence, the answers to other in the supporting judgment have the do issues support. 17, Feb. 1939. “Ap- appellant’s motion: quote from We and now contends pellant contended then materiality of the answers to the the that and the harm to above referred to issues by subjected appellant was reason which issues arose jury’s answers to those of the submission of certain the conditional from other issues.” theory appellant’s of brief It was on this conclusion of fundament- based our
that we exception was reserved to No al error. issues, of certain submission conditional the can now con- point based thereon be and no sidered. appellant’s again from motion: quote We prop- the do not believe Court can “We by dispose saying to erly of this matter late; you should appellant come too —‘You the form the submission objected to of have appellant’s To so answer issues.’ these of contentions appellant be, say in to to would effect anticipated have should —‘You Special Issue jury would answer that the negative, though all of the even No. 38 in presented was them before the evidence Baylor Hobson, B. Brown and L. Jack dispute and called for an affirma- without ” Worth, appellant. of Fort for both issue.’ answer to the tive Boone, Slay, H. Lester and Frank duly Issue 38 was submitted W. Special No. J. Worth, Roberts, appellee. for required all of Fort appellant was to jury, and the to