(DAMAGES FOR TORTS.) ligence can arise where the injury resulted from the fall of a bridge. The burden of overcoming the presumption of negligence is on the carrier. p. 434. Where there is no platform the company owes the duty to the passenger to provide a safe appliance to alight—the safest that has been known and tested. A stool may be found by the jury not such a safe appliance. p. 368. It is the duty of the company to make the appliance as safe as a platform. Id. A railroad company must carefully and skillfully test and inspect its bridges before trusting the lives of passengers upon them, and from time to time while in use-to ascertain whether they are being impaired by use or exposure. p. 434. A passenger does not lose his character as such by alighting at a regular station although not at the terminus of his journey. p. 683. An issue tendered by a defendant that a person was not a passenger waives an objection to the complaint of the failure to allege that he was a passenger. p. 156. If a passenger steps from the train while slowing up, looks and sees no train approaching, he has a right to assume that none is coming at a rate which precludes his crossing a single track. p. 683. The rule that one about to cross the track must look and listen must be observed although his view has been temporarily obstructed by a passing train. p. 743. A less degree of care is required as to the condition of the approaches to a train than that required as to the roadbed, machinery, etc.; mere ordinary care as to the former is sufficient. p. 74. Where an elevated railroad company failed to throw ashes or sawdust upon a staircase leading to its station, during a storm of sleet and snow in the night, it is not such negligence as will render it liable for injury to a passenger who knows of the storm and of its effects. Id. A passenger allowed to ride on a special train, in the absence of collusion with the conductor to defraud the company, becomes a passenger entitled to the care due from a carrier to a pas senger on a special train; and the company will be liable for his death caused by derailment of its car, notwithstanding such passenger declined to enter the box car at the invitation of the conductor. p. 155. A person may recover full compensation for personal injuries, though at the time suffering from a disease aggravated by the injury. p. 434. Loss of baggage. A passenger on a steamboat who takes a stop-over check at an intermediate point cannot recover for loss of her baggage by fire, where it is placed in a storehouse at the place of destination to await her arrival. p. 287. Wrongful expulsion of passenger. In an action for wrongful expulsion of a passenger complainant need not allege that he was complying with the rules of the company, or that he was not about to violate the same at the time of the expulsion. p. 733. The reason ableness of a rule for government of railroad business is a question of law. 1d. A rule inhibiting passengers from wearing the uniform cap of an opposition line of steamers is not a reasonable rule. Id. When a passenger wantonly violates a reasonable rule, the obligation to transport him ceases, and he may be expelled at any safe point, by no more force than necessary for such purpose. Id. Permitting an intoxicated passenger to enter a train does not deprive the carrier of a right to eject him for misconduct. p. 80. An intoxicated passenger becoming boisterous, threatening and generally obnoxious, may be ejected from the train where he had stopped it by pulling the bell rope. Id. Although a common carrier owes a duty to protect its passengers, and its regard for the rights of healthy passengers will authorize it to terminate the carriage of a sick passenger by ejecting him, yet this right cannot be exercised without due care and provision for the safety of the ejected passenger. p. 133. A passenger stricken with apoplexy in a street car cannot be removed in a speechless and helpless condition to the open street, with no effort to procure him attention, without rendering the carrier liable for resulting damages. Id. The mistake of the driver in supposing a passenger is drunk will not excuse the company for a wrongful ejection from the car. Id. Where the answer rests upon the denial of any duty in the premises, the kind and degree of care to be exercised are not involved. Id. Railroad company; liability for its torts; damage to property. A railroad company which has carefully constructed its road is not liable for damage to a watermill by clogging its wheel and partially filling the stream with sand loosened by the construction of the road. p. 565. For negligently setting out fire. The Colorado Act making railroad corporations liable for damages by fire is not unconstitutional. p. 350. A railroad company is liable for failure to exercise due care to extinguish a fire caused by sparks from its engine, although not guilty of negligence in setting the fire. p. 639. Testimony to the springing up of a fire immediately after the passing of a train warrants an inference that it was caused by the train. p. 350. Whether due diligence has been used in a given case by railroad employés in extinguishing a fire is a question for the jury. p. 639. For injury to traveler on highway. The failure to place a flagman at a crossing may be negligence, although not ordered by the railroad commissioner. p. 594. If a train cannot be so run at a dangerous crossing that it can be stopped at once, a flagman should be stationed to give warning of its approach. Id. Although it is negligence to run a train at high speed over a crossing, a traveler who drives upon it at a slow trot when by looking he could see the train is guilty of contributory negligence. In such case he cannot recover unless there was gross negligence on the part of the railroad company. Id. That the engineer was temporarily disabled from controlling his engine is no excuse for running at great speed through a station or in a street of a populous city. p. 683. Contributory negligence of traveler. A man cannot omit ordinary precautions on approaching a railroad crossing, merely because he finds the gates up. p. 44. A hose company driving at a rapid rate on approaching a railroad crossing is guilty of contributory negligence, though the gates were not closed and the watchman displayed no light and gave no warning. Id. A person is guilty of contributory negligence if while driving a heavy team he stops near a crossing at a point where his view is obstructed by a barn, to permit a train to pass, and then hurries across the track, without waiting to look for other trains, where a delay of a (CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE. minute or two would have made the track visible | guilty of malice, gross negligence or oppression, beyond the barn. p. 743. Except in cases of exemplary damages are not recoverable for the gross negligence whether a person in crossing malicious act of the conductor causing injury a track exercises due care is a question of fact to the passenger. The mere retention of the for the jury. p. 683. conductor in employment is not a ratification of a willful assault on a passenger. The ratification of a servant's act is a question of fact. p. 634. Telegraph companies. In an action against a telegraph company for neglect to transmit a message, the difference between the price at which the property was offered and its market value when the acceptance of the offer should have been delivered may be recovered as damages. p. 71. On an admission that a good title to land would have been obtained if a telegram had been promptly delivered, the authority of the agent to whom the message was directed cannot be questioned. Id. Where the complaint shows a right to nominal damages demurrer should be overruled. Nor is the complaint demurrable, on the ground that the message was to be delivered beyond the state limits, where but part of the penalty is claimed. ld. Nuisance; flooding lands. The upper proprietor on a stream has no right to remove a ledge of rock and thereby vary the natural flow of the stream to the damage of one below him. p. 606. The right to abate or remove a nuisance has no application to the removal of a dam in a navigable river, built under authority of statute. p. 747. On a general exception to a charge particular phrases cannot be specially excepted to. Id. braces; hence, criminal indulgence with a lewd woman is not seduction. Id. Where not declared by law the effect of evidence is for the jury to determine. Id. 7. CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE. Seduction. A reformed woman is entitled to damages for her seduction. p. 529. Seduction means the use of influence or artifice on the part of the man by which he induces the Master and servant; liability of master for in-woman to surrender her chastity to his emjury to servant. An employer is not liable for an injury sustained by an employé where none of the appliances furnished, except the one which caused the accident, were defective, and a new and safe substitute for that one had been furnished. p. 320. The servant of a railway company operating the road belonging to another company cannot recover against the lessor company for injuries sustained through negligence of his employer or its officers. p. 567. The conduct of children should not be judged by the same rule which governs that of adults, With them ordinary care is that degree which children of the same age ordinarily exercise; and those who employ them should so instruct them concerning dangers of the employment that they may, by the exercise of such care, guard against injuries; and where injury supervenes in consequence of neglect to so instruct them, an action lies against the employer. p. 385. Attempts criminal. Attempts which if successful would result in an indictable offense, are indictable, as attempting to destroy a dam. Defendant charged with such attempt cannot prove a shoaling below the dam, as evidence of his good faith and legal right to remove the dam, to rebut malice in the absence of proof that he was advised and honestly believed he had such right. The superior court, being a court of general jurisdiction in regard to special proceedings for erection of a dam, is competent to decide for itself whether or not it has power to act upon a petition for its erection, and its action cannot be questioned on an indictment for its attempted destruction. 747. p. Criminal negligence. Brakemen are not guilty of negligent homicide by omitting to stop the train or to signal the engineer to stop after seeing a child on the track; they have no legal duty in the matter under the Texas Code. p. 644. A principal in an offense charged as such is incompetent to testify in behalf of the other defendants. Id. Lotteries. A lottery scheme is one of which neither reason, foresight, sagacity nor design can determine the result; and a policy dealer who receives money from a person on an agreement to repay him the amount to be determined by such result is guilty of the statutory offense. p. 403. Fellow servants; who are. A laborer employed to remove snow, under the immediate control of a road master, is a fellow servant of a track walker and a conductor. p. 824. So a section foreman and conductor of a freight train are fellow servants. And where a train was making a flying switch and the view of the track was unobstructed the foreman was guilty of negligence in attempting to cross the main track diagonally while the rear section of the train was in full view. p. 363. Evidence as to customary carefulness of a person is not admissible as to his negligence at the time of the killing. Id. A brakeman on the forward end of a freight train which is uncoupled is a fellow servant of the engineer who has taken charge of the train in the absence of the conductor. p. 282. A superintendent while performing Sale of liquor. Where a member of an assoservant's work is a servant; and whether he ciation sells chips which are received by the undertakes the work of removing hatches or association in payment for a drink or glass of orders it to be done, he is engaged in perform- beer for each, from beer brought from out of ing the duty of a workman. p. 559. A fore- the State, the president of the association, presman upon a derrick and his assistants are fel-ent at the time and knowing the facts, may be low servants, and evidence of a statement of prosecuted for violation of the Liquor Law. the foreman as to how the accident happened p. 687. is inadmissible in an action for the death of one Injuring property. Injuring “property." of his assistants. p. 320. within the meaning of the North Carolina Liability of master for malicious acts of serv-Code, means an injury to personal property, ant. If the carrier or its officers have not been for which a party is liable to arrest. p. 376. (CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE.) Defrauding creditor. A pensioner refusing | that a juror on a trial was also a member of to apply pension money to the payment of his the grand jury, unless objection was made on debts is not within the Pennsylvania Act mak- the trial. p. 181. A justice of the peace has ing it a misdemeanor to defraud creditors. p. exclusive jurisdiction over cases of petit lar219. ceny. Id. A statute transferring jurisdiction Criminal practice. When the minimum de- to another court is not such an ex post facto law gree of punishment is not above one year in as will forbid a trial in the new court, of an the penitentiary, a statute which gives the offense committed prior to its passage. Id. A judge discretion to allow the jury to disperse statute diminishing the degree of punishment is unconstitutional. p. 210. A motion to ar- without altering the kind governs punishment rest judgment cannot be sustained by the fact of an offense committed before its passage. Id. 3 L. R. A. |