The Indianapolis journal., 1894-04-25
LIABILITY OF COUNTIES.
Supreme Court Defines a Case Where
1t Should Not Exist.

Judge Hackney yesterday rendered a de-
csion I'm the case of Robert Cones The
Commissioners of Benton County, affirm
ing the judgment Of the lower court. The
appellant, by a complaint in two para
graphs, sought damages from the appellee
for personal injuries sustained by defects in
the repair of a gravel road in the county
The Circuit Court sustained a. demurrer
TO each of the paragraphs. and that ruling
was the only error assigned in the Supreme
Court. In the courts opinion Ii was stated
that the decisions quoted by the appellants
attorneys have gone to the very verge in
holding a county liable where persons who
have entered q bridge have sustained injury
because of the negligence of the county
officers in constructing or maintaining the
bridge
Judge Hackney stated that the court in
the case in question was not dealing with
the liability of cities or towns, nor with
that Of counties in reference to the repara-
ton of bridges, and was not called upon
application of principles to the so-called
civil and political governmental subdivi-
slons Of the State and the municipal cor
ties a new liability, not created by stat
ute but implied from a duty enjoined and
the provision of means for the performance
serted for applying 1t is that ii has been
implied in other cases.
NO question of sound public policy is
suggested in support Of the extension Of LA
bility." says the opinion, "and when we
remember that to extend it and place coun-
ties and cities under the same liability the
same duties must be held to exist" The
affirmation of the judgment of the Circuit
Court, 1t was stated. was due to the fact
that the Supreme Court is convinced that
the liabilities of counties should not be
extended TO the class of cases to which the
one in question belongs. 1t held that no
error was committed in sustaining the de-
murrer to the complaint.
Another Wine Room Aftermath.
Mary 5. Fenley is the defendant in a suit
for divorce filed yesterday by her husband.
Addison c. Fenley. The Fenleys were mar
ried in 1878, and lived together until April,
1898. They have three children, Gertrude,
Lizzie and Albert. Fenley charges his wife
with many specific violations of the mar
riage VOW. In February, 1898, he says, she
began to go out after night leaving her
husband and children, under the pretext of
accompanying friends to the theater. She
would remain out. he says. until midnight,
and then return home with the odor OF liq-
uor on her breath. Her husband says he
learned that she was spending much of her
time in the wine room. and begged her to
remain at home with her family. He says
that she disregarded his advice and contin-
ued TO keep up evil associations. On the
evening of April he came home from work
and found his wife absent. A note left by
her explained that she found II impossible
to live with him as he desired, and had
gone for good. He shows that he attempted
to care for his children. but was unable to
find a suitable housekeeper and consented
to allow them 10 live with their mother un-
til he could provide home for them. He
now asks the court to award him the GUS
tody of the children and TO grant a divorce.
a Fire Suit from Muncie.
Charles II. Over glass manufacturer
Of Muncie. and score of insurance COM
panies sued the Lake Erie & Western
Railroad Company In the Delaware Cir