St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-07-01

y
ceived.
Evidence upon the question Of defendants
alleged negligence considered and held to
make a case for the jury.
VANDERBURGH, j.
William Stone, respondent, VS.. Louis A.
Evans, appellant
jSyl1ab.ss-Irf an action by husband from
damages resulting to himself from injuries
to his wife caused by the malpractice of
physician, damages for loss Of service which
appears necessarily to result from the nature
of the injury, may be recovered as part OF
the general damages without being specially
pleaded
Damages for the mental anxiety or the in
jured feelings of husband, father or mother,
if recoverable at all in such cases,
are to be allowed by the jury
as matter of aggravaJion upon consideration
of the facts and circumstances of the case,
and not upon the statements of witnesses as
to the amount of such damages.
Where it appeared upon the introduction
in evidence of deposition that the cross
heterogeneous annexed to the commission
had not been answered, but it clearly APP
peared that the material facts testified to in
chief by the witnesses were already con-
clusiveIy established or were not disputed on
the trial, held that the reception Of the depo-
sition under the circumstances was error
without prejudice.
Order affirmed. VANDERBURGH, j.
John T. Eldridge, appellant VS.. the Mime
apolis 81 st. Louis Railway company re-
spondent.
iSyRa5uS-To rebut the presumption Of
negligence in railroad company, arising
from an accident by which the plaintiff was
injured, the defendant offered evidence of
the circumstances of the accident, the char
acter and actual condition of the cars, road
bed, and track and of the speed and man
agement of the train, and also witnesses
tending to show that the track and
cars were well built and in good
condition and that the train was
properly managed Held to make case for
the jury upon the question whether defend
ant exercised due diligence under the cir
cumstances.
The granting of motion for new trial
for newly discovered evidence is largely in
the discretion of the trial court and where
such discretion appears to have been fairly
exercised, in determining such motions its
action in the premises will not be reversed.
Order affirmed. VANDERBURGH, j.
AlonsOn Hinman, appellant, VS.. A. " Hey
derstadt and Peter Henry, respondents.
Syllabw-Defendant peacefully entered on
the premises in controversy under bona
fide claim of title, and cut and removed the
grass growing thereon.
The title having been subsequently adj
judged to be in the plaintiff, held in an ac-
ton by him for the conversion Of the hay,
that the proper measure of his damages was
the value of the standing grass, and not the
value of the hay after it was removed
Nesbitt VS.. Lumber company, 81 Mimi,
1892, distinguished.
When a trespass is the result of inadvert-
ence or mistake, and there is no Intentional
wrong, the value of the property when first
taken must govern. or if the conversion sued
for was after value had been added to it by
the work of the defendant he should in such
case be credited with this addition.
Order affirmed. VANDERBURGH j.
]. w. Winslow and Lydia D. Winslow, re-
spondents, VS.. The Dakota Lumber com
pany, appellants.
.SyVdbuS-Evidence in the case considered
and held sufficient to support the verdict in
AdNol VI pLillltlll'
In an action by A against B for the price
of goods alleged to have been delivered to
C upon BIS promise to pay for them the fact
that upon AS books of account the goods
were charged to is proper to be considered
upon the question to whom was credit given,
but it is not decisive against the admissible
ty of the books in evidence
Order denying a new trial affirmed.
BERRY, J.
VIM. Wilson, appellant VS.. Patrick Reedy
and Hugh Reedy, respondents.
lSylabuS-A harvesting machine was sold
to the defendants by plaintiff with warranty
of it's quality and capacity, and which he un-
derstood was purchased by them for actual
use in harvesting a large crop of grain be-
longing to them, held that damages for in
jury to the grain from delay, while they were
experimenting with the machine and at
tempting to make it work, cannot fairly
be considered such as would arise
either naturally from the breach
of the contract, or just as may personally be
supposed to have been contemplated by the
parties when making the contract as a prob
able result of the breach. Frocach vs.. Gam
mon, IS Mimi, AZ. Order reversed.
VANDERBURGH, ].
Elizabeth NJ. Bowers, respondent, VS.. Chas'