12

To the Honorable Mayor and City Council of Fort Worth.

Gentlemen:

I have the honor to report to your that we tried the case of Harts-
horn Bros vs R. L. Carlock and the City of Fort Worth, which resulted
in a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the city for $350.

This was a remarkably low verdict, and I regard it as quite a
victory for the city. The city under the evidence was unquestionably
liable in damages, provided the court should hold that the cause of
the damage was covered by the notice and that the other technicalities
of law with reference to the notice were complied with by plaintiff.
The court held that such was the case and, of course, a verdict against
the city necessarily resulted. I defer with the court in his holdings
with reference to the notice.

The other defendant, R. L. Carlock, escaped upon the ground that
the sewer built across the culvert which was the cause of the damage
was built by the city and that Carlock was in no way responsible for
its location. I differ from the court in his holdings with reference
to Mr. Carlock, but a serious question arises which is this. Should I
obtain a new trial for which I have applied, upon any ground other than
defecting the notice, a subsequent trial would probably result in a
much greater verdict as the plaintiffs' proof showed a damage of $2600.

In view of the smallness of the verdict and of the fact that the
city can not be compelled to pay the judgment in its present financial con-
dition and probably not for many years, I am in doubt as to the best
course to pursue, would involve an outlay in the neighborhood of
$200 which would now have to be paid. My best judgment is that it would
be better not to appeal the case and let the judgment be paid at some
subsequent time when the finances of the city could better stand its
payment. While I am of opinion that I can reverse the case on the