The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-01-20
MADE IT ONE DOZEN
JUDGE MITCHELL HANDS DOWN A
BATCH OF SUPREME COURT
a. DECISIONS.
DULUTH ELECTION CONTEST.
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT IN
THAT NATTER is Az
FIRNED.
DULUTH ELECTION CONTEST.
ONE TOUCHING INSURANCE ALSO.
Question of n Change in Securities
Which Is Not Recognized
Proper Transaction.

Twelve decisions, bearing the sigma
ture of Judge Mitchell, were handed
down by the supreme court yesterday.
Probably the most important of them
is that affirming the judgment of the
district court in the matter of the Du-
luth city election contest. 1t is held
that under the form of ballot submit
ted to the electors of Duluth, the ques-
ton of whether the proceeds of the
bonds to be issued for water and light
plants should be expended in the pur-
chase of the private plants now in use
or in the erection of new ones, pre-
sented competing propositions and
while an electOr could vote against
both he could not vote for both. With
the ballots invaddated by this decision
thrown out the vote will stand in favor
of building new plants.
The court holds that the award Of
$500 damages to Conner Gahagan for
the loss of the ends of two of the
fingers of his left hand was excessive.
The damage case of Sarah H. John
son against the st. Paul City Railway
company is another in which the dam
ages are held to be excessive and a
tiff VIII consent to a reduction of the
amount.
In the action of Marcus P. Hayne,
as receiver of the Metropolitan Trust
Co. against r.. c. Dunn. as state audi
tor, to compel the auditor to turn over
to the receiver certain securities de-
posted with him by the company by
requirement of law, the order of the
lower court, is affirmed on appeal Of
he md
appeal of the state auditor. The
syllabi in these cases are as follows:
In the matter of the contest of an election
held in the city of Duluth Nov. 8, 1896 I'M
der Special Laws 1891, chapter 55, Edward
c. Bauman, contestant, vs. City of Du-
luth appellants.
Held that under the form of ballot sub
mitted to the electors of the city of Du-
luth upon The subject of issuing water and
light bonds and expanding the proceeds, prop
ositions two and three were competing prop
os:tions; that an elector could vote against
both, but not in favor Of both. Judgment
affirmed. Mitchell, ].
Conner Gahagan, respondent, VS.. The Aerom-
eter Company appellant.
In determining whether the doctrine of re-
spondent superior applies the test is wheth-
er, with reference to the matter out of which
the alleged wrong sprung, the person sought
to be charged had the right under the con-
tract Of employment, to control, in the given
person doing the wrong: Following Raft
New England Furniture Company, 68 n. w.
Rep 729.
Held, that in this case this was, under
the evidence, a question for the jury.
The injury to a boy aged between eight
and nine years consisted of the mangliEg of
the ends of the ring and middle fingers Of
the left hand SO as to require their ampu-
tation at or near the first joint.
Held that, in the absence of any evidence
of special or peculiar damages, a verdict
cessiye. Modified. MITCHELL, J..
Sarah s; johnson, respondent, VS.. St. Paul
City Railway Company, appellant.
Held that the evidence justified the jury
in finding that plaintiffs injury was caused
by the negligence of those in charge Of de-
fendants car.
Also that there was no evidence to submit
to the jury on the question of plaintiff S
contributory negligence.
Also that the damages awarded were eX-
cessive, and that a new trial should be
granted unless plaintiff will consent to a re-
duction of the verdict. Mitchell, ].
Marcus P. Hayne, as receiver, respondent. VS..
The Metropolitan Trust Company and R.
G. Dunn ct al, defendants; The Metro
politan Trust Company, appellant.
Marcus p. Hayne, as receiver appellant, VS..
The Metropolitan Trust Company ct al.
defendants; Robert c. Dunn, as state au-
ditor, respondent.
An insurance company assigned to and de-
posted with the insurance commissioner GER
tain securities in trust for the benefit of its
policy holders pursuant to Gen. St 1894 sec
ton 1882. Subsequently the insurance COM
pany and the defendant trust company made
an arrangement by which the former assigned
to the latter these securities in exchange for
other securities. The two companies then
procured from the insurance commissioner
retransfer and surrender of the securities
deposited with him, the insurance company
substituting in place Of them Cbut of much
less value) part of the securities which it had
received from the trust company, and the
trust company depositing with the state au-
ditor in trust for itself, the securities thus
surrendered by the insurance commissioner