| Show THREE NE SUPREME COURT GOURT OPINIONS Handed Down Today Reversing The Judgment of the Lower Lowel Court in Each Case 2 NEW TRIAL IN CASE CASEs s Held 1 I I II I II td II Iron rOil i I Company Ia ti 3 Must 1 Tain nI Cure eun fIe for Pro Iro lection cc luit of t opinions were down by hy byI I tile 1 mutt today awl and In hI lIch each ain Iho Ih h of o Ui lower court ourt eO In tho Iho cn o of tt JI arl s lii t Judge T J t 1 b wl of or tha tho ho n l writ of ot n prohibition lill n aln t to pro prohibit hibit him from of or ofa o ot a II 1 tom a u justice t k III In which rrt and Hum wis VIII l art Willi H Riven Iv en n In Ill Hie fI J i Lice and I II to tu appeal 10 lo the tho II reI ourt lit itt flied Hied or I Intention of or o ill illIng c Ing hig III an 1111 au undertaking cm on appeal but bul lid 1 not MI tho Iu within thIn the Iho time required by hy U lal The objected to tn Jurl z of oC the he case ami 1111 to tj din It n R the appeal n E l to In the where whereupon upon a petition In the iu lIu ti l reme OUI for or n I T rt 11 of oC pro prow Ii LIon The IIi I U uie 1 ItI rE holds hold holdst t that lint I th noth i of 01 nt If f an no undertaking king not hot a II of Hum PUch ch H hm l 1 III not flIt I ell bj h law In Therefore II It Is III that ha hili no Juris Jurisdiction diction over ovel th tI and a writ of lit i IoU I granted THOMAS fAIIA i K CASK CAS I II jn I ii the case jUO of Nellie ail tj x of tho thu of u Thomas deceased appellant vs V the theSau Sau I ami Salt company tin tIo judgment of ot tilt tho lower or court In tot reversed und Riot 1411 1 u II now trial I granted Mr II who vim Willi on 1111 of tit z 2 f Al I 1 J WUK killed III hi the tho th Hun Pedro yards Just north of North Temple street on l thu morning I of Oct t 10 11 19 on OIl bin way lo tO lop 0 p worl nr Ha III I I e v walking along thu the trick track when w boot a I train waw UK ticked backed h up 1111 lie ho I hoh hind h I loot him hi Iti and to flu ho IO wa os cru hod to death In Iho lower court CollEt Indue I wl In Ill the jury jilt to tn mum Il a verdict t In lii favor of tot defendant which was done In n the tho appeal It t was Willi Vlot claimed that thu thO t t till 1111 It t In hi It lo to 0 a II large amount of on 1111 of nc plaintiff The he court holds hold that where n It has ban al II the ho public to tn to u I I i a LI way Woy WiY K through lift iA yarda for years v any tny n objection lou It II Is Ii i hound to ti uno UM 1 earn cort III In tho the protection of o the tho public It U IH Is hold that the tho ho court coUtt In hi coI tIn II and 0 nh Ihn tim IH ItO 1 0 und unc titi u 01 now nw trial granted r JUDO mW The ril rIl judgment j lid I of nt the thu tw lower lo ser court In Inthe th the Iho of lt Sarah J 1 I n I J Ci i et ct al nl a watt Wil va also I by the court 1111 tiff t sued mud to recover rl Ocl damages In Iii II Ito Iho mm MUl of ot for to her hr hl crop crOl 1 by II the Ile of tot f water Iler in itt 11 to defendants Tho ho jury returned f a it B In 11 favor of de If In III II tho Iho lower court hut but thi Ihl court holl that tint the court erred In regard to Instructing the Jury JUlY julY fin all fil lo to contributory negligence nfl and almi Instructed the tilo Jury July on matters I aters foreign torell to 10 the Issue Hence the tho Judgment ig Iii If reversed |
