
    CHICAGO, R. I. & G. RY. CO. et al. v. KERR.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
    Jan. 24, 1914.)
    1. Appeal and Error (§ 742) — Assignments op Error — Statements—Suppiciency.
    An assignment of error complaining of the overruling of an objection to testimony as to the usual running time of a train between certain points, on the ground that the witness did not know the usual time, that his answer was a mere conclusion, and that it did not appear that he was qualified to give any testimony, would be overruled, where the statement submitted thereunder failed to show that the grounds stated were true.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742.]
    2. Appeal and Error (§ 742) — Assignments op Error — Statements—Supitciency.
    An assignment that the court erred in overruling an objection to testimony on the ground that it was immaterial, irrelevant, and a conclusion would be overruled, where the statement did not show that the witness was not qualified to give an opinion upon the matters asked about.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742.]
    3. Carriers (§ 230) — Delay in Transportation op Live Stock — Questions por Jury.
    In an action for delay in transporting a shipment of cattle, evidence that the shipment left Saginaw, Tex., about 5 p. m. August 24th, and reached Kansas City, Mo., about 6 a. m. on the 27th, justified the submission of the carrier’s negligence to the jury; its explanation of the delay not being necessarily conclusive.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 961, 962; Dec. Dig. § 230.]
    Appeal from Wise County Court; E. M. Allison, Judge.
    Action by Edgar Kerr against the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant named appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The shipment involved left Saginaw, Tex., about 5 p. m. on August 24th, and reached Kansas City, Mo., about 6 a. m. August 27th.
    McMurray & Gettys, of Decatur, and Lassi-ter, Harrison & Rowland, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. J. A. Templeton, of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SPEER, J.

This is the ordinary action to recover damages for injuries to a shipment of cattle from Saginaw, Tex., to Kansas City, Mo. The acts of negligence alleged were rough handling and delay en route, so that they arrived at destination ond were sold on the market a day late. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Kerr, for $300, and the defendant the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company has appealed.

The first assignment of error is overruled, because the statement submitted thereunder fails to show any error. In the statement it is shown that the testimony of a witness was objected to on the ground that it appeared he did not- know the usual time for the run between Saginaw and Kansas City, and his answer was a mere conclusion as to the usual running time of such a train, and that it failed to appear that he was qualified to give any testimony. The court overruled these objections, and there is nothing in the statement to show that the grounds stated were true, and therefore that the court erred in overruling them.

The same reason exists for overruling the second, third, and fourth assignments. There, according to the statements, certain testimony was objected to on the ground that it was immaterial and irrelevant and a conclusion, and the statements contain nothing to show that such person was not qualified to give an opinion upon the matters asked about.

We have carefully examined the court’s charge, and are of the opinion it properly submitted to the jury the issue of appellant’s negligence, and did not assume that fact against it. The length of time occupied by appellant in transporting appellee’s cattle afforded sufficient evidence of negligence to justify the submission of the issue to the jury, and its explanations of such delay were not necessarily conclusive.

There is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.  