The Dickinson press. (Dickinson, Stark County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1927, 1891-08-01
Supreme Cour, Decisions.

BISMARCK, July 2S.-Two decisions
were filed i'll the supreme court yester
day, the first being the case of Bauer vs..
Bauer, OH appeal from the district court
OF Pembina county, Hon. Charles F.
Templeton, judge. The action appealed
from was instituted under chapter 167
of the laws of 1890 by the plaintiff to
compel her husband, the defendant, to
support the plaintiff and her children
living with her. No summons was ever
served and the only jurisdiction obtained
BY the court was petition presented tc
the court and on which an order to show
cause issued. The question turns upon
whether a simple order to show caus.
obtains jurisdiction OF the defendant
The trial court held in the affirmative,
but this view does not meet with favor
with the supreme court and they reverse
the order and direct dismissal of the
action. The following syllabus was
filed:
The district court can obtain jurisdic-
ton of the proce edings authorized by
chapter 167 of the laws of 1890 to com.
pei husband to support his wife only
by service OF summons, as in other
ca es in equity.
The second case was entitled George
A. Bennett VS. the Northern Pacific
Railway Co., on appeal from the court
of Hon. Roderick Rose, Stutsman
County. The plaintiff was at work in
the yards of the company in James
town as switchman, and while SO at
labor was seriously injured by reason of
being caught between car AMI an ell.
gine he was trying to couple together.
Tie defense to an action for damages
was that the defendant had disregardcd
an explicit rule of the company which
required their employees TO exercise
great care when coupling cars. Inas-
much as the coupling apparatus of cars
and engines cannot be uniform in STYLE
size or strength, and is liable to be
broken, and as from various causes it is
dangerous to expose between the same
the hands. arms or persons of those en-
gagged in coupling cars or engines to
examine, SO us to know the kind and
condition Of draw-heads, draw. bars,
links and coupling apparatus, and are
prohibited from placing in the train any
car with defective coupling until they
have first reported its defective condi-
tion to the yardmaster or conductor
Sufficient time is allowed and may be
taken by employees in all cases to make
the examination required" The court
holds that the defendant was guilty OF
contributory negligence in not regard
ing this rule, and hence cannot recover.
Jud dgnent reversed. Syllabus filed as
follows:
Plaintiff was injured while coupling
an engine to Car because there was
not sufficient space for his body between
them. The draw bars of the engine
and car were unusually short, leaving a
space of only about ten inches between
the end of the car and OF the engine
when the draw-bars came together,
whereas the usual space is from "a to 30
inches. Held, sufficient to justify a
verdict that DEFENDANTS negligence was
one Of the prominent causes Of the in
jury.
It appearing that plaintiff was injured
in consequence of his failure to obey the
rule of defendant that he must examine
SO as to know the kind aid condition OF
the CO upling apparatus, the rule giving
him sufficient time to make such exam
ination in all cases. Held, that he
could not recover.
Exclamations and expressions of pres
ent pain may be proved by any one who
hears them, although made subse-
quently to the injury.