St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-01-21
ALlW0NY NOT DEBT.
AT LEAST 1T DOES NOT COME
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION.
HURD CASE DECIDED AT LAST.
CHIEF JUSTICE START SUSTAINS
DISTRICT COURT IN SEND
ING HIM TO JAIL.
CARLSON WILL GET HIS MONEY.
The Telephone Wcrkman's Verdict
Against His minneapolis Eni-
piOyer Is Sustained.
HURD CASE DECIDED AT LAST.
CARLSON WILL GET HIS MONEY.

Chief Justice Start yesterday handed
down three decisions, including two
quite important ones. The case of
DR.. William J. Hurd and wife brings
up one of theln, and the chief justice
rules that the constitutional provision
prohibiting imprisonment for debt does
not prevent the confinement of hus-
band for failure to pay alimony ordered
by the court The ruling is very en-
phatic, and expressly lays upon the
recalcitrant husband the burden of
proof that his failure so to pay alimony
is due to his inability.
A peculiar complication now arises
In the case. Since this proceeding for
contempt was carried up to the court
above, Hurd, who filed a cross bill, has
been granted divorce from his wife,
which naturally carries with it no
claim on the part of his wife for any
alimony further than the temporary
alimony accorded her during the pen
dency of the action. This assumes that
the husband had q moral right to re-
fuse his wife any alimony, but it does
not alter the fact that the husband is
still subject to arrest for failure to pay
her alimony, which the evidence in
the trial seems to have shown that
she did not deserve
The ruling in the case of Carlson vs.
The Northwestern Telephone Company,
damage suit from Hennepin county,
bears upon the liability of employers
for Injuries occurring through the neg
igence of foremen and overseers.
Following are the syllabi:
William ]. Hurd, appellant VS.. Anna A.
durd, respondent.
J.. Where, in an action for divorce the
husband is ordered by the court to pay to
the wife certain sums as suit money and
temporary alimony. and is unable to pay the
same and he has not voluntarily created
the disability for the purpose of avoiding
Such payment, he cannot be imprisoned until
ne obeys the order. But where he has the
power to comply with the order, and fails to
do SO. he is guilty Of contempt of court and
may be imprisoned until he purges himself
OF the contempt by paying the money as
oroered Ihe enforcement of the order I'M
der such circumstances does not violate the
constitutional provision forbiddng imprson-
ment for debt.
q Where the husband falls to comply with
the order directing the payment of temper
airy alimony, the burden is upon him to sat
iisfy the court by fun and fair showing of
his financial condition and resources that
his failure to obey the order was due solely
to his inability to make the payment.
.. me records and evidence in this case
order of the trial court directing that the
plaintiff be imprisoned until he obeys the
previous orders of the court commanding him
to pay alimony to the defendant. Order af-
ffrmed. Start c. +
Swan Carlson, respondent, VS.. Northwestern
Telephone Exchange Company, appellant.
l. Held, following Lindvall V. Wood Al
Mimi, 212, that the decisive test whether, in
any given test, an employee is to be re-
garded as vice principal fellow SER
want, is not his title or rank but the nature
OF the services which he performs. If he is
authorized to perform duties which are the
absolute duties of the master, he is to the
extent of the discharge of those duties
vice principal.
2. Held, further that whenever the nature
and magnitude of the masters work whether
1t be that of construction otherwise are
such that it is necessary that orders be given
regulating the conduct of his employees and
directing them where to work, it is not only
the right, but the absolute duty, of the mas
ter to give such orders, and in obeying such
orders the employees have right to assume
that the master, in giving the orders, has
exercised due care for their safety.
B. The defendant, in excavating a ditch,
placed the work and the men employed
thereon, of whom the plaintiff was one in
charge of d foreman. who had general over
sight of the work The men were subject to
his orders; he had authority to employ and
discharge them and tC direct them what to
do and where to work, and was the supreme
authority there present The foreman negli-
gently ordered the plaintiff from the place
where he had been working into the ditch
at a point where he had not previously
worked, which was place of unusual danger
by reason of crack in the earth on the side
of the ditch, and defects in the curbing
which danger and defects not obvious
or known to the plaintiff who obeyed the or
der and was injured by the caving in of the
ditch. Held, that in giving the order the
foreman was vice principal and the defend
ant liable for his negligence. Order affirmed.
Start, G. ].