Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-07-31
The Celebrated Injury Case of Ben
nett va. the N. P. Rail-
road Reversed.
The Court Holds Plaintiff Guilty of
C~ontributary Negligence in Not
Obeying Rule Of Defendant.
Sterling Sprinklings-About our Rail
roads-Destructive Hail
Board of Education.
A Couple of Decisions.


Two decisions we're filed in the su-
preme court yesterday, the first beng
the case of Bauer vs.. Bauer, on appeal
from the district court of Pembina
county, Hon. Charles F. Templeton,
judge. The action appealed from was
instituted under chapter 1877 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 a petition presented to the
, court and on which an order to show
cause issued. The question turns upon
whether a simple order to show cause
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 a dismissal Of the
action. The following syllabus was
filed:
The district court can obtain jurisdic-
ton of the proceedings authorized by
chapter 167 of the laws of 1890 to COM
pei a husband to support his wife only
by service of a summons as in other cases
in equity.
The second case was entitled George
A. Bennett VS.. the Norther Pacific rail-
road company, on appeal from the court
of Hon. Roderick Rose, Stutsman
county. The plaintiff was at work in
the yards of the company in jamestown
as a switchman and while 80 at labor
was seriously injured by reason of being
caught between a car and an engine he
was trying to couple together. The de-
Tense to an action for damages was that
the defendant had disregarded an ex-
plicit rule of the company which required
their employees "to exercise great care
when coupling cars" In as much as the
coupling apparatus of cars and en-
gines 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, all employees are en-
joined before coupling cars or engines to
examine 80 as to know the kind and condi-
ton Of drawbacks, draw-bars, links and
coupling apparatus and are prohibited
from placing in the train any car with a
defective coupling until they have first
reported its defective condition to the
yard master or conductor. Sufficient
time is allowed and may be taken by en-
ployes in all cases to make the examina-
ton required" The court holds that the
plaintiff was guilty Of contributory
negligence in not regarding this rule and
hence cannot recover Judgment re-.
versed. Syllabus fled as follows:
Plaintiff was injured while coupling an
engine to a 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 30inches. Held,
sufficient to justify a verdict that defend
ants negligence was n of the promi-
nent causes of the injury.
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 and condition of
the coupling apparatus, the rule giving
him sufficient time to make such exami-
nation in all cases. Held, that he could
not recover.
Exclamations and expressions of
present pain may be proved by any one
who hears them, although made subse-
quently to the injury.