Hopkins County Levee Improvement Dist. No. 3 v. Hooten

(after stating the facts sis above). Appellant predicates error on both the general charge of the court and the refusal of the court to submit the special charge concerning the burden of proof. He insists that the burden of proof was upon the landowner, and not upon the levee improvement district, to show special or consequential damages to the part of the land not taken for actual use by the appellant district. The appellant was assuming to establish that the amount of compensation that should be awarded the ap-pellee was the value of the 5.56 acres right of way strip. The appellee, the…