St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-08-18
SAINT PAUL.
A PECULIAR CASE.
You Don't Have to Think Of Side
walks NECESSARILY.

"athS AuCcSSaliij.
Justice Collins gave reversal of the
order of the court below in the case of
Winnie Meloy, appellant, against The
City of st. Paul. This was a personal
injury case. The plaintiff, it is related,
brought action to recover because of in
jures, in other words, received owing
to defective sidewalk, and verdict
was secured. but set aside upon the
motion of the defendant, and new
trial ordered. The facts were not in
dispute. The defect was in the
walk in front Of the lot on which
plaintiff resided with her husband.
The plank in the walk at this
particular point had been laid length
wise and one had been broken down so
that there was hole about eighteen
inches long and about SIX inches wide.
The walk was six inches above the
ground level. and it had been in this de.
fectiye condition for more than three
months and plaintiff had known of this
all the time, She had passed the spot
daily for more than two months prior TO
the evening of the accident, carefully
avoiding the dangerous place. When
the accident occurred there was slight
snow on the walk, partly filling The
hole, and the snow was still falling.
About dark, plaintiff. who was fifty
years of age, stepped INTO the hole, and
was thrown down and injured. She
testified that the falling snow was
blown into her eyes so that her vision
was INSTRUCTED. and also that she did
not think of the defect in the walk as
she passed.
The court below ordered a new trial
upon the hypothesis that there was
nothing apparent i'll the trial TO distract
the attention of the plaintiff. The SUI
preme court has repeatedly held that
previous knowledge of defect Ill
street or sidewalk is not conclusive evil
dence of cOntributory negligence, SO as
bar recovery.
q In reversing the forder Justice Collins
SAYS in bis syllabus:
While it is certain that previous
knowle dye of the existence of defect
i'll street or sidewalk has an important
and oftentimeS a decisive bearing upon
the question of cODtributory negligence,
mere iuattention Oh the part of a person
injured by reason of such detect will
not conclude him upon that question
1t Is not necessary that the thoughts of
Traveller should at all times be fixed
dpon q defect in a public thoroughfare
Of which he may have notice. Order
reversed.
Charles ". Carpenter ct al. respondents, VS..
American building aud Loan Association
appellant. Judgment affirmed.
COLLINS, j.
Syllabus t'lrSt-As a general propo-
sItiun when an actual conversion of
chattels has taken place the owner is
under 40 obligation to receive them
back, when rendered by the wrongdoer.
There may be exceptions to this general
rule when the wrong lacks the element
of wlllfulness, has been committed in
gooa faith and the court III its uiscre-
ton orders return upon timely apDli-
cation 10y defendant. in an action of
trespass or troyer, accompanied by an
offer 10 pay AL c0sts.and a showing that
M real injury will have been suffered
by the p.alnufT when possession is re
stored
, cpnl-iield in an action Identical
WITH that oI Alien vs. same defendant,
IL ,iilin.. 3l4. that the defendact aSsnel.