Texarkana & Ft. Smith Ry. Co. v. Smith

WILLSON, O. J.

■ (after stating the facts as above). The contention first presented in appellant’s brief is that the trial court erred when he refused to grant its motion for a new trial on the ground, first, that the testimony did not warrant a finding that it was guilty of negligence as charged against it; and on the ground, second, that it conclusively appeared from the testimony that the risk incurred by the deceased in returning to the bridge from the telegraph pole was one he had assumed. We do not think the contention is tenable on either of the grounds urged.

As to the first, if it did…