The herald., 1894-08-04
A DECISION REVERSED.

Mrs. Raub's Damage Suit Against the
Terminal Will Be Tried.
The supreme court has reversed the
judgment OF Superior Judge Van Dyke
In granting non.suit in the damage
suit of Mrs. Sarah Raub, appellant, VS..
Los Angeles Terminal Railway company.
Mr.. Raub took passage upon Termi-
nal train the morning of May 6, 1892,
to 20 from Glendale to De Camp station.
which is a regular station on the road
just north OF the city limits. The rail-
road company does not iseue tickets
from Glendale for that station, but for
all stations or stopping places within
the limits OF Los Angeles, tickets are
sold to Los Angeles. The trains stop at
De Camp and passengers are accustomed
to get on and off there. Mrs. Raub had
frequently taken passage at Glendale
for De Camp, and had been informed by
the conductor that he always stopped
there.
She bought ticket for Los Angeles
the morning in question and whom the
train reached De Camp it stopped q
short distance beyond the platform.
She was in the act of getting off and
had reached the lower step OF the Car
when the train started without any
warning and she was thrown to the
ground and WAS pretty severely injured.
Judge Van Dyke at the trial granted a
non.suit, and the supreme court in dis
cussing the case says that it should not
have been granted. They say that
whether Mrs Raub was entitled to q
recovery depended upon Ter ability to
show that her injury resulted from nag
. L. - ef ho ha
negligence of the railroad in this case
was an ultimate fact resulting from
other points and umstances in the
case. and was to be ascertained upon
their consideration, viewed with respect
to the respective relations Of the par
ties. In such q case the issue of negli-
gence is go much question of fact, or is
so dependent upon the determination Of
controverted facts, that its existence,
the court says, must be left to a jury.
Referring to the responsibility OF
railroad to afford reasonable time for
passengers to alight from its cars at the
station to which it has assumed to carry
them. the court says that it is the duty
OF the railroad, and if q passenger 10 in
jured while attem pting to alight at such
station, by reason OF the sudden and un-
announced starting of the train, the
| burden is thrown upon the company OF
showing that the injury was not the
| result of its own act or negligence.
The defendant could not avail itself
of the failure of the conductor to an
nounce the station before reaching it as
| evidence OF negligence on the part OF
the plaintiff. 1t WAS regular station
upon the road, at which passengers were
wont to get off and ON every day and
as the plaintiff had been informed by
the conductor that he always stopped
| there, she was authorized to consioer
the stopping Of the train at the station
| as an invitation by the defendant to get
| off. The question Of the plaintiffs neg
ligence should have been submitted to
the jury.
The supreme court affirmed the decl-
sion of the Los Angeles superior court
in the case of r. W. Grannie, appellant,
vs. M. II. Lordon, respondent. 1t was
an action to quiet the title of the plain
tiff to q 40-acre tract Of land. Upon
the filing of the complaint the court
granted temporary injunction restrain
ing the defendant from interfering with
plaintiffs possession of the land. Tho
defendant answered, alleging that the
land was unsurveyed government land
and that he had been in actual posses
sion of it for more than two years before
the fling Of the complaint. He asked
for a dissolution OF the injunction,
which the court granted. and the appeal
was taken from the order. The supreme
court, in affirming the judgment, says
that the dissolution or continuance of q
preliminary injunction ia a matter
largely within the discretion of the trial
court. and unless it appears that the
discretion has been abused the action of
the court will not be disturbed. They
fail to see that the superior court abused
its discretion in making the order.