The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1881-09-01
Important Legal DecIsions.

A permanent fence was built upon
the land of an adjoining owner by
mistake, and purchaser from him,
on buying the land, took up the
fence and put it to some other use.
When the fence was built there was
no agreement as to its removal. In
an action for the value Of the fence
as personal property, Kimball VS.,
Adams, the supreme court of Wis
consin, on May 10, through Judge
Cassoday, decided that the building
of fence upon land as a permanent
structure, in the absence Of any
agreement that it might be removed,
will necessarily convert the mate
rial of which it is built from per-
sonal property into reality" And
the judge added: "The fence in
question having become a fixture,
and the title to it having passed to
the detendeut with the title to the
property, it follows that he had the
legal right to pull it down and dis
pose of the material as he pleased"
An employee was discharged from
his employment under a definite
contract for a yearly salary, which
was payable monthly, upon the
ground that he was impatient in his
manner toward those dealing at the
store, and he sued for the loss he
suffered by the withdrawal of the
salary. In this case. Leatherberry
VS.. Odell, recently decided by the
United States circuit court for the
western district of North Carolina,
Judge Dick charged the jury that, If
the plaintiffs disposition and gen.
eral department toward the custo-
mers and other employees seriously
affected the custom and business of
the defendant in his department, his
discharge was justifiable. But slight
discourtesies, hasty words and occa-
sional exhibitions of i'll temper will
not give sufficient grounds for such
discharge" And he added that,
while the defendant was liable for
the salary during the unexpired
term, the plaintiff must show. as a
condition to recovery, that he had
used all reasonable efforts to secure
a new position in like employ
ment for he "can not lawfully spend
the balance of the unexpired term
of service in idleness and sloth," and
require his former employer to sup
port him.
The duty of carrier to forward
and deliver freight with proper dis
patch was considered in the recent
case of Helliwell VS.. Grand Trunk
railroad company, ofCanada, in the
United States circuit court, at Mil
waukee, Wisconsin. Helliwell ship.
ped -four by the defendants road
to London, from Milwaukee, and,
by the terms of the contract, the
-four was to be transported by boat
to Ludington, Michigan, thence by
rail to Portland, Maine, and from
that point to be carried by steam
ship to London. The flour was de-
tanned at Portland by reason of an
extraordinary accumulation of
freight, which the railroad company
could neither foresee nor control.
Helliwel claimed the damages he
Suffered from falling off in the
price of flour between the
date at which it should have
been delivered, as he alleged,
if there had not been an unreason-
able delay at Portland, and the date
of the delivery. The company ar
gued that it was not responsible for
the delay, and Judge Dyer, in
charging the jury, said: "lf, after
the company took this -four for
shipment, and after the peri Jrmance
of the contract to carry it was be-
gun, there occurred, without the
fault of the company, an extracrdi-
nary and unforeseen influx upon its
lines of freight for foreign export,
which unexpectedly incapacitated
it for forwarding with the usual dis
patch, the delay being wholly occa-
stoned by the usual and unexpected
pressure of freight, and not by any
negligence Of the company, it would
not be responsible tor the damage
suffered by the fall in price by the
delay so occasioned."