Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1893-06-09
Order of Judge Mcconnell AnnullinR
the Decree Of Divorce.
Affirmed
Leave Given Mrs. Yorke No. I to
Put In an Answer in Thirty
Days.
The Lower Court Reversed in the
Edgerley Case and he Gets
$1,000 Salary.
The Text.

The Tex.
Five decisions were filed in the SUI
preme court yesterday, being a portion
of the cases argued at the recent May
term. Some of them have excited con
siderable interest in the state and the
rulings of the appellate court will be
read with interest.
COMAsKEY VS.. NORTHERN PACIFIC.
Conlaskey vs.. Northern Pacific Rail.
road Co. comes up from Cass county and
involved a suit for personal injuries re,
ceived while working for the company.
In the trial court plaintiff received a YER
dict and judgment. This is reversed
and the case remanded for a new trial,
on the sole ground that the court erred
in its charge to the jury. The following
syllabus was filed:
In an action to recover for personal
injuries where there is no claim in the
complaint or in the evidence that plant.
IFS mental powers were in any manner
impaired by the injury, it is error for the
trial court to instruct the jury that in
estimating the damages they may take
into account the effect of the injury
upon plaintiffs mental powers.
Taylor Crum for plaintiff; Ball &
Watson for defendant; opinion by Bar.
tholomew, CD.
B~RASsTETTER VS.. MORGAN.
Branstetter VS.. Morgan was tried be-
fore Judge Rose in Barnes county, where
the plaintiff recovered judgment for sew
eral horses in the possession of the de-
PENDANT. Branstetter is a horse ranch
owner in Oregon and lost a number by
theft. Himself and neighbors formed a
pool and sent him out to find them, if
possible. He traced them along the line
of the Northern Pacific as far as Tower
City in Cass county, where he found that
n McCullom had been selling them as
his property. A warrant was issued for
his arrest, but he skipped before being
apprehended. A demand was made on
Morgan for those in his possession, but
he declined to give them up, having paid
full price for them to McCullom. An
action in rep.evin was instituted and on
this appeal the ruling of the trial court
is affirmed in the following syllabus:
A plaintiff may properly introduce
evidence to refute an inference or
presumption of fact that might arise
from matters drawn from himself on
cross examination, even though such
evidence has no direct bearing upon the
issues, and the time of the introduction
of such evidence is peculiarly within the
discretion of the trial court.
In claim and delivery where each party
claims the right of possession by virtue
of absolute ownership and in no other
manner, a verdict which finds the plant
if entitled to the possession of the prop
e1ty and fixes Its value, will support a
judgment for plaintiff for possession of
the property or its value as found by the
jury.
6. K. Andrus for platrtif; M. A. Hill
dreth for defendant; opinion by Bar.
tholomew, G.. j.
HUTCHINSON rs. CLEARY.
Hutchinson VS.. Cleary, ct al, comes
from Eddy county and involved a con-
test over a bonus offered some time ago
to induce the removal from a town IN
South Dakota to New Rockford of q
roller mill. The move was made, the
mill placed in operation and then q dis
pute arose over the payment of the cash,
the wheat, the town lots and various
other things that constituted the bonus.
Hutchinson commenced action against
the guarantors of the bonus, but instead
of recovering the sum sued for, the jury
returned a verdict for the defendants for
over 500, the evidence showing to their
minds that the town had been injured
by the way the mill was operated. The
case was reversed and remanded for g
new trial. Following is the syllabus,
Under Section $3.50, Compiled Laws, a
party to an action is prohibited from tes.
tifyipg to q conversation with plaintiff 9
interstate Notwithstanding the fact that
an agent of the decedent, was present at
the time the conversation took place.
Parol evidence held incompetent be.
cause it contradicted the terms of q
written agreement between the parties,
and the error in admitting the evidence
held prejudicial because the court sub
mitted to the jury a question of fact as
to which there was no controversy under
the evidence except on the theory that
the jury had a right to base a finding
upon such parol evidence.
So long as the principal acts for him.
self in a matter in the presence of his
agent, the agent as to such matter does
not represent the principal. His power
is suspended for the time being.
p. w. Camp for plaintiff; S. L. elias.
pell for defendant; opinion by Corliss, j
EDaERLEY VS.. STATE AUDITOR.
State Of North Dakota, OK rel. Mathew
J. Edgerley vs.. A. Currle, Jr., as audito,
of North Dakota, involved the salary
question of the secretary Of the railroad
commissioners. In the decision were