Oakes weekly Republican. (Oakes, Dickey County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1898, 1891-07-31
Supreme Court Decisions.
BISMARCK Julv 2s-Two deci

BISMARCK July 2S.-Two decisions
were filed i'll the supreme court yester.
day. the 6rst 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 1G7
of the laws Of 1890 by the plaintiff to
compel her husband, the defend mt, 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 O
the court and on which an order to show
cause issued. The question turns upon
whether a simple order to show cpuse
obtains jurisdiction Of the defendant.
The trial court held in the affirmative,
but this view does not meot with favor
with the supreme court and they reverse
the order and direct dismissal of the
action. The following syllabus was
filed:
The district count can obtain iurisdic-
tion Of the proc, elings authorized by
chapter 167 Of the laws of 1890 to com.
pei a 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 PaciGc
Railway Co., on appeal from the court
of Hon. Roderick Rose Stutsman
County. The plaintiff was at work iu
the yards of the company in James
town as switchman, and whila SO at
labor was seriously injured by reason of
being caught between car and an Gu
gine he was trying to couple together.
The defense to an action for damages
was that the defendant had disregarded
an explicit rule of the company which
required their employees 10 exercise
great caro- when coupling cars. Inas.
much rs the coupling apparatus of cars
and engines cannot be uniform in style,
size OF strength, aud 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 as to know the kind and
condition of draw-heads, draw bars,
links and coupling apparatus and are
prohibited from placing in the train any
Cur with defective coupling until they
have first reported its defective condi-
tion to the yurdmaster or conductor
Sufficient time is allowed and may he
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
Judgment reversed. Syllabus filed rs
follows:
Plaintiff was injured while coupling
an engine to O car because there was
not sufficient space for his body between
them. The draw bars of the engine
and car were unusually hort, 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 hey 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 suoh 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.