*1 971 expiration occurring before the violations Act those contentions Price Control the United jurisdiction not within the

are or of this court

States District Court jurisdiction was vested

determine. Such Appeals and Emergency Court 204 Supreme Court Sec.

United States

(d) Act.1 Insofar of the Price Control authority rent under order issued 1947, appellant is Housing Act of Rent contesting validity precluded its pre-trial admissions and

virtue his

order. charges On the the maximum accommodations

made for rentals of

multiple claimed occupancy, which it is now dispute, trial being in supports The evidence

court took evidence. addition, In think finding.

its allegations direct admitted terms complaint respect thereto.

Judgment affirmed. & INDEMNITY ACCIDENT

HARTFORD BLACK et v. al. CO.

No. 13669. Appeals Court of States

United Fifth Circuit. 28, 1951.

Dec. 7, Rehearing Feb. 1952.

On Rehearing 18, Denied March 1952.

Further 194 F.2d

See 1003. States, 472, 624, 414, 815; Yakus 321 92 1. v. United 68 S.Ct. L.Ed. Woods U.S. 834; Hills, L.Ed. Bowles 334 U.S. S.Ct. v. 68 S.Ct. Willingham, v. 321 U.S. 64 S.Ct. L.Ed. 892; Woods 88 L.Ed. 333 U.S. Stone. *2 below, injury occurred

on the trial that the 19, 1948. on October appellee Flowers, had Doctor to whom on Oc- gone first medical examination for 1948, appellee had tober testified that reported injury having as the accidental date, he which occurred on October said, placed history the medical on Appellee hav- records in his office. denied reported of the in- ing so him the date to jury, and, in testi- rebuttal of doctor’s mony, injury copies of the notice of offered compensation, and claim for both docu- prepared by having ments been Doctor secretary Flowers’ from information ad- mittedly These furnished Mrs. Black. injury of the gave two the date documents They being as had October trial, and were introduced earlier in the purpose then limited to the showing they fact that had been filed. After Doctor testimony, appellee Flowers’ offered on documents to show date which she injury Appellant claimed her occurred. ob- jected ground on the that the documents being were self-serving offered state- as subject hearsay ments were rule. “Well, The court I let them in said: will bearing as of the date of injury.” appellee attorney for then showing said that he offered these them, date of on each of October 19th plaintiff’s exhibits Nos. 1 and offered Tex., Houston, ap- Keeton, for E. Robert theretofore admitted in evidence. The rec- pellant. thereupon ord shows court admitted Tex., ap- Houston, for Smith, Edwin J. 1Nos. and 2 for the exhibits pellees. purpose showing the date on which it occurred, was claimed the as shown Judge, HUTCHESON, Chief Before exhibits, and that said instruments said STRUM, Judges. Circuit HOLMES jurisdictional previously had been limited time their purposes court at the Judge. HOLMES, Circuit Thereupon a confer- original admission. re- prerequisite to the jurisdictional A place between the court and ence took compensation, under the Texas covery of bench, hearing at the out counsel Law, Compensation Vernon’s Workmen’s jury; no reporter further seq. filing is the 8306 et art. Ann.Civ.St. court enlarging ruling was the Indus- with claim scope this evidence. or months aft- within six Board Accident trial ruling to the evidence The court’s failing good cause for injury, unless er injury” “bearing on the date of the months is shown. six within the claim to file us; we cannot perfectly clear but not filed her claim Black Appellee Onie Bell erroneous, since did have say it was Acci- the Industrial compensation with jurisdictional pre- testified, April 1949. She on Board dent ' Rehearing On Petition objecting In pleadings. sented merits, appel- argument on the counsel’s Judge. HOLMES, Circuit the court correctly lawyer stated lant’s says gen- of Avon The Bard pur- the limited admitted the evidence *3 upon lay ourselves which we blame tle made; the claim was pose showing that of therefore, natural, deep It is has no root. sus- objection should have and this rehearing em- petition should that the it. tained, overruled but the court opinion, shortcomings phasize of our the do with has to foregoing All of the error pass affirmative lightly over the and merits, On the the issue. jurisdictional inadvertently agreed having in of counsel by us suffi- question is deemed there no of the use imperfect for the record an require by us. ciently discussion serious to request its Contemporaneously with court. fact, have questions of All such were peti- a appellant rehearing, filed the a juris- the by jury. Even been decided the record, of which for the correction the tion fact, presented question of a dictional issue stipulation prepared case under was in this the jury by to the which was submitted a petition alleges that of counsel. This wit- proper instructions. No court under the opinion from taken our statement in personal knowledge from ness testified 1 and record, concerning plaintiff’s exhibits except appellee. injury to date of the the actually represent what occurred does not testimony relevant Doctor was Flowers’ by trial, placed record in the but was on the or it related to only and material so far as pur- reporter for his official court own the impeachment of Mrs. had on the a the poses; appellant prays that rec- Black, appellee, though it first the even was of by ordering the deletion be corrected ord deposition in of a introduced the witness petition is to the notation. Attached said plaintiff. was the The doc- who offered reporter, in the court an affidavit umentary injury to of the evidence as notice parenthetical nota- says he which to and the tended claim tion, page 275 of the tran- the bottom of at Flowers, testimony refute the Doctor of impression script, represents of his own Black, impeach which tended to Mrs. trial, but not during the does what occurred personal knowl- Doctor Flowers had no represent ruling the court on the evi- the of edge injury. of the date cred- The complete in confidence We have dence. the ibility affidavit; of of Mrs. Black as to the date reporter’s con- the verity the of peculiarly for the cor- sequently, petition was to the deleting the therefrom jury. The the record limitation of rect the is above mentioned notation parenthetical the exhibits Nos. admission to delete is directed granted; and the clerk expressly made, only not the and 2 was transcript of the record. the same from the court, plaintiff’s attorney offering but by in of most the withdrawal This necessitates it; and this limitation was not removed opinion, more or less af- which was of our expressly impliedly by or the court in over- portion; accordingly, by the deleted fected appellant’s objection to counsel’s ar- ruling hereby paragraph except first is the all of it gument. No motion for a on ac- mistrial withdrawn; turn to a consideration timely improper argument was count rehearing upon the rec- petition for the made, by appellant; it but if had been ord as corrected. conceding ruling that the court erred in propriety argument, of counsel’s the by the trial court As the to refusal point one, highly involved is a technical the requested instruction for specially aof the error not a sufficientreason war- to probable an covering the effect of defendant only appellee being rant reversal. the plaintiff’s disability, it seems operation upon personal any had knowledge witness who appel in upon the authorities cited clear injury, jury fully the the the were date of not that defendant was entitled lee’s brief her. believing warranted The hernia stat to have this instruction. requires proceedings certain ute Texas Affirmed. immediately if require plaintiff substantially year, defendant seeks to whole operation; general preceding injury, have an is her or statute in the same similar employment, neighboring same in that same or a effect. It is not claimed require plain- place; special entitled to was and the No. answer to operation; tiff claim average wages to submit an daily fixes the of such plaintiff employees. evidence shows not at The law does re $6.07. quire operation, intended have and that be employees labor of other identical; jury defendant was to have the in- entitled is sufficient if labor en did, operation structed gaged that if she them was the same class. success, jury should find she Traders Jenkins, Ins. Tex. General Co. *4 permanently Possibly Civ.App., 350; was not disabled. the 144 S.W.2d Associated In feasibility operation properly might demnity Corp. McGrew, an of v. 138 Tex. gone jury general 912; have to the in its consid- 160 S.W.2d & General Ins. Traders case; eration of the but we think the re- v. Tex.Civ.App., Co. 181 S. Yarborough, quested charge would have created con- W.2d 305. fusion, statutory in of scheme view the Dr. Mrs. Flowers testified that operations Texas. The admits in Black told him the date of the accident that there are no Texas cases sub- 2nd, testimony was October 1948. This ject. was relevant and a material in double probable With reference to the ef aspect: Black; first, impeachment Mrs. plain operation surgical fect of second, an against as admission interest of that, tiff, the is well rule Texas settled aspect, Mrs. Black. In the second such ad compensation after a case has reached the original against mission was evidence courts, permitted to the insurer is not in declarant; interest of the but the docu terpose it such defense if did not tender the mentary evidence as to notice operation Accident before Industrial and the claim for was not ad Article 12b and e Board. Section missible “as on the date of the in Texas; 45 Civil Statutes of Tex. Revised jury” if this the court meant to rule that 183; 45 Sec. Sec. Jur. Tex.Jur. tending prove was admissible as 222; Employers’ Liability v. Ass’n Wil injury, evidently date of the which is what Tex.Civ.App., 210; liams, 293 S.W. Texas intended, court indicated 'its rul Neatherlin, Employers’ v. Tex. Ins. Ass’n objection appellant’s ing argu on to the 967; Com.App., Tally v. 48 S.W.2d Texas appellee. objection ment in behalf of The Ass’n, Employers’ 129 102 Ins. Tex. S. the court admitted this evidence 180; Employers’ v. Ins. Ass’n

W.2d Texas showing for the limited 544; 547, 125 Tally, 132 Tex. S.W.2d Na objection claim was made. This should Mutual, etc., Lowery, Tex. tional Civ. sustained, have but the court over 1044,Id., App., 136 Tex. S.W.2d it, permitted appellee’s ruled attor S.W.2d ney argument, 'his continue which re peated emphasized the erroneous rul contention made that the The is reason, think, ing. this judg For plaintiff in the kitchen time worked.more appealed reversed, from ment should be waitress, but than as a fails the cause remanded for a retrial of the resulting to it any harm to show undue single accident, issue as to the date of the average daily permitting jury any disturbing finding other without plaintiff wages. and other The evidence jury. specifications All other of er shows that the duties of wait witnesses held to be not well ror are taken. carrying included in Buford’s cafe ress petition rehearing granted includ The is heavy dishes. duties tables, part; part cooking, waiting carrying judgment and denied in on ed aside; special heretofore heavy The answer to issue affirmance entered is set dishes. reversed; judgment appealed employees the fact is No. 11 establishes finding jury only Mrs. Black worked the aside same class as is set 2; findings of special other issue No. all sustained; re- jury the cause are special solely upon manded a new trial proceedings not 2,No. further opinion.

inconsistent with this CO. v. RY. WESTERN

CHICAGO GREAT QUINCY CHICAGO, BURLINGTON et R. CO. al.

No. 14445. Appeals States Court

United Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 1952. Bryce Hamilton, (Guy Chicago, L. Gladson, 111.,

A. Chicago, Paul Mc- J. Gough, Wright Brooks, Minneapolis, W. Minn., Winston, Strawn, Black & Town- er, 111., Faegre Chicago, Benson, Minneapolis, Minn., on brief), appellant. William Quinn, Paul, St (J. Minn. J. James, C. Nye I. Shields and F. James Morehouse, all Chicago, 111., Warren Newcome, Edwin C. and Hallan Matthias Huffman, Paul, all of Minn., St. C. W. Wright, Musenbrock, Richard Minneap- olis, Minn., Countryman, M. Jr., L. Con- Paul, Minn., Olson, Bluhm, St. rad M. L. 111., Erdall, Chicago, A. C. Rider, S. W. Hetland, Jr., and L. all of Min- James Minn., neapolis, brief), ap- pellees. GARDNER, Judge, Before Chief THOMAS,

SANBORN and Circuit Judges.