Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1896-04-24

POAVuoAO WC1C lulClCoJCO anu
following the record back. l then wish
the people to judge as to whether their
their rights or the corporations interests
are by this body most carefully guarded.
On April Z, 1896, the supreme court of
this state, through Fuller, j., handed
down an opinion reversing the case of
Peart vs. G. NJ. & St. P. Ry Co. assigning
as reason, not that the decision Of the
jury in favor of Peart was unjust nor
that it was not supported by the evidence,
neither was any claim made that the trial
judge did not correctly state the law
applicable to the case in his charge to the
jury, but assigned as reason the flimsy
excuse that as the trial judge had refused
to give concede6ly erroneous instruction
requested by the company, but corrected
it so as to properly state the law and thus
give it that error was committed and the
verdict of the jury should be set aside
If poorer excuse has ever been offered
for reversal of a case, have yet to hear
of it. The same question arose in Wis
consin under a statute precisely like the
one in force in this state, but there the
court very correctly arrived at the con-
clusion that if the law is correctly stated
in the charge as given by the trial judge
there is no ground for complaint. In fact
the doctrine promulgated by the Wiscon-
SIN court is SO elementary IS to admit Of
no doubt. or rather did not until the
opinion above rendered by our court was
announced.
One of the most remarkably features in
the trial Of the Peart case was the fact
that the company was actually caught
attempting to bribe juryman in the
course OF the trial, and would doubtless
has succeeded in procuring disagree
ment Of the jury had 1t not been for the
fortunate discovery.
On October 20, 1895, this court through
Fuller. j., rendered decision upon a
rehearing granted IN the case Of Kirby vs..
w. U. Telegraph Co. reversing the action
OF the trial court and holding in sub
stance that the Telegraph company owed
no duty to its patrons. This case was
one Of more than ordinary public interest
as i. WAS the first case involving the ques-
tions presented ever tried in this country.
A decision in favor Of the company there
fore was to them worth a fortune. The
most remarkable fact in this case was
that the same court by unanimous
decision reached a different conclusion on
the same question two years before, but
then that was by different judge.
On January Is. 1896, the same court
through Fuller. j., in the case of Goats
VS.. c. M. & S.. P. Ry Co. rendered a
decision for the defendant holding IN
substance that railroad company is not
bound by n contract as to freight rates
entered into by its local agent, even where
the company through such agent receives
and retains the agreed compensation.
On November 10, 1895. in the case Of
Carpenter VS.. G. M. & St. P. Ry Co. this
court however through the same judge
aftirms judgment for the magnificent
sum of $50 against the company. In this
case the company failed to even dispute
it's liability, and although the appeal
appears 10 have been taken by the COM
pany through mere preversenesss till the
discretionary penalty for taking an un-
founded appeal was not imposed.
On January Is, 1895, the supreme court
again through the same judge in the case
OF Lewis vs.. F. F.. & NJ. V. Ry Go. re-
versed the action Of the trial court and |
jury and apparently completely ignoring
the provisions Of sections 55OO4 Comp. |
Laws, held that railroad company was |
under no obligations to keep lookout
for stock on the track, which for all prac-
tlcal purposes amounts to a holding that |
they were not liable for injury to stock.
On March 9, 1895, this court in the case |
of Harrison VS. c. NJ. & St. P. Ry Co. |
denied plaintiff leave to file an amended |
abstract showing additional facts render i
ed necessary by the nefarioLs doctrine
established in Lewis VS.. Ry Co. supra,
and the railroad company smiled.