Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtJenkins
Citation141 S.W. 1011
Decision Date29 November 1911
PartiesMISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS et al. v. ROGERS.
141 S.W. 1011
MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS et al.
v.
ROGERS.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
November 29, 1911.

Appeal from Hays County Court; J. B. Wilson, Judge.

Page 1012

Action by W. J. Rogers, Jr., against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Fisher & Fisher and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, for appellants. Will G. Barber and T. C. Johnson, for appellee.

JENKINS, J.


Appellee brought suit to recover damages alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of appellants to a shipment of hogs from Seguin to Fowcete, alleging that by reason of insufficient pens at Seguin five head of hogs escaped and were lost, and by reason of the manner in which said hogs were shipped plaintiff was damaged in the amount sued for. Judgment for appellee for the sum of $384.13.

1. The first assignment of error is as to the refusal of the court to allow the appellant Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company to inquire of the persons summoned to serve as jurors as to whether or not any of them were indebted to plaintiff's attorney for any money. If such had been the fact, it would not have been cause for challenge; but the privilege of peremptory challenge given by the statute is a valuable one, and a party has the right to inquire of the jurors as to such matters as would enable him to intelligently exercise such privilege. This inquiry is within the discretion of the judge, but it is a legal discretion, subject to review; and while the inquiry should be kept within proper bounds, and an impertinent and irrelevant question should not be permitted, yet we think the question propounded was a proper one, the answer to which might well influence a party in making peremptory challenges. Proverbs, xxii, 7; Davis v. Bank, 29 S. W. 926; Saller v. Friedman Bros., 130 Mo. App. 712, 109 S. W. 796; Stone v. Const. Co., 135 Ky. 659, 117 S. W. 369; Marrow v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 519, 120 S. W. 419.

2. A witness was permitted, over objection of appellants, to state that it was cold and raining at Seguin during the late afternoon and night preceding plaintiff's shipment out of that station. The evidence shows that appellants contracted to ship the hogs from Seguin by 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening, and that they did not get them out until next morning; but there was no allegation that the hogs were injured by reason of such delay, for which reason it was error to admit such testimony. Lumber Co. v. Lee, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 522, 27 S. W. 161; Middlebrook v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 31, 10 S. W. 732.

3. Appellants requested special charges Nos. 4 and 7, to the effect that the jury should disregard the evidence as to damages by reason of delay in the shipment. Appellee objects to a consideration of special charge No 4, because it does not appear from the record that the same was presented to the court, and either given or refused. In this connection, we wish to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Wise v. City of Abilene, No. 2017.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 17, 1940
    ...628, 279 S.W. 267; Darnaby v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 408, 1 S.W.2d 615; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, Tex.Cix.App., 141 S.W. 1011; Art. 2144, The rule was invoked excluding witnesses from the court room. At plaintiff's request, the court, over defendants' objection, excuse......
  • Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Andrews, (No. 2569.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 9, 1925
    ...San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Chittim (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 747; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. of Tex. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 1011; Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Vaughn (Tex. Civ. App.) 191 S. W. 142; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Culwell (Tex. Civ. App.) 216 S. W. 457;......
  • Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Broadway, No. 6347
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • January 5, 1961
    ...is under his control, and his discretion in handling it was not abused. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W. 1011. Appellees' petition prayed for damages in the sum of $38,440 for injuries in behalf of the father, D. H. Broadway, and for $75,000 in behalf......
  • Greenman v. City of Fort Worth, No. 15848
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • November 22, 1957
    ...not be confined to matters which might be ground for challenge for cause. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W. 1011. But the scope of the examination allowed is in the discretion of the court, which discretion is reviewable. Lassiter v. Bouche, Tex.Civ.Ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Wise v. City of Abilene, No. 2017.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 17, 1940
    ...628, 279 S.W. 267; Darnaby v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 408, 1 S.W.2d 615; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, Tex.Cix.App., 141 S.W. 1011; Art. 2144, The rule was invoked excluding witnesses from the court room. At plaintiff's request, the court, over defendants' objection, excused th......
  • Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Andrews, (No. 2569.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 9, 1925
    ...S. W. 255; San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Chittim (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 747; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. of Tex. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 1011; Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Vaughn (Tex. Civ. App.) 191 S. W. 142; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Culwell (Tex. Civ. App.) 216 S. W. 457; Lanc......
  • Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Broadway, No. 6347
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • January 5, 1961
    ...is under his control, and his discretion in handling it was not abused. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W. 1011. Appellees' petition prayed for damages in the sum of $38,440 for injuries in behalf of the father, D. H. Broadway, and for $75,000 in behalf of ......
  • Greenman v. City of Fort Worth, No. 15848
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • November 22, 1957
    ...not be confined to matters which might be ground for challenge for cause. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W. 1011. But the scope of the examination allowed is in the discretion of the court, which discretion is reviewable. Lassiter v. Bouche, Tex.Civ.App., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT