The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-05-18
BUNCH or DECISIONS
FINDINGS or THE SUPREME COURT
IN. THIRTEEN CASES ARE
FILED
THERE ARE FOUR REvERsALS

THERE ARE FOUR REvERSALS
Hoard OF County commissioners
Are Not Authorized Under the
Law of 1857 to Drain Public Me-
Rndered Lakes-One Of the RuI-
iRss That Was Overset Applies TO
: Sale of Liquor in Iowa.
$Four reversals were recorded out of
o. Itch of thirteen decisions handed down
by Associate Justice Mitchell, in the state
supreme court yesterday.
THE court holds that the Laws of 1897,
chapter 81, does not authorize boards of
county commissioners to drain public
meandered lakes. The point was decided
In The case of William Witty against The
boarti OF county commissioners and coua-
ta auditor of Nicollet county.
The decision is of general interest to
people living in sections of the country
where many small lakes are located. 1t
Is frequently the case that nonresident
land owners drain these lakes. and the
ca e'Evas Brought in the nature of a test
case. 1t is claimed that these small lakes
are the source of local showers. and if
they ara refnoved the precipitation will
b.. materially decreased. The syllabus
reads:
William Witty ct al. respondents vs.
The Board of County Commissioners
and County Auditor of Nicollet County,
appellants.
SSliabus-The drainage act of 1887.
laws 1887, chap. SD does not authorize
tee BOARD @of county. commissioners to
drain public, meandered lakes: Order az
firmed Mitchell. j.
Rudolph SfeBer; as administrator of the
estate of Matthias Sieber deceased re-
Company, appellant.
Syllabus-Aetion to recover damages
for the death of plaintiffs intestate,
caused by the negligence of the engineer
of defendants train. on which deceased
was fireman, in ''bueking'' snow.
Held, that upon the evidence the ques-
all the risks incident to ''bucking" snow
In the manner and under the circum-
stances existing on this particular occa-
sion was for the jury.
Also that the questions whether the
method adopted by the engineer was a
proper and prudent one, and what would
have been the proper and prudent course
under the circumstances were subjects
foreXpert evidence, not being matters of
common knowledge.
Also that upon b ~ the established facts.
ages of the next of kin (the father. by
reason of the death of the deceased, was
neither excessive nor unsupported by the
evidence.
But that the amount $500 awarded for
care of the deceased during his last sick
ness. and for funeral expenses, was in
excess of what the evidence justified.
Order affirmed on condition that the
plaintiff RENTS the excess.
Mitchell, ].
a-- A- -
Lyman l. Belknap. respondent, VS.. Cath
crime ]. Van Ripper ct al, defendants;
Catherine ]. Van Ripper, appellant
Syllabus-ln an action to forecloSe a
mortgage about d month after the eX-
piration of the time allowed for redemp-
ton, no one having redeemed and the
mortgagOr still Withholding possession
from the purchaser, the. court made
final decree pursuant to General Statutes
1894. sec. 6066, in which was incorporated
provision that the purchaser have exc
cutiOn for the recovery of the premises.
Held, that it was not error to incor-,
porate this provision into the final de-
cree. Order affirmed. Mitchell, j.
George Bollinger, respondent, VS.. George
W.zeWilson, appellant.
SyflabuS-The- statutes of Iowa prohibit
the sale of. in intoxicating liquors by any
person not having permit and provides
that If any person not holding a permit
sells such liquors he shall be guilty of a
miSdemeanor. 49, 1t further proyides5 that
all payments or compensation for intoXi-
eating liquor sold in violation of this
chapter" may be recovered back by the
person making or furnishing such pay
ment or compensation. An agent of a
brewing company doing business in Mil
WatHee, Wis, entered into a contract
with the plaintiff in Iowa by the terms
of which the brewing company agreed to
selh. and the plaintiff agreed to buy
quantity of beert be by the former de-
Hvered to the latter free on board the
cars at Milwaukee, convenient to the
plaintiff at his residence in Iowa. The
liquor was delivered by the brewing COM
pany free on board the cars at Milwau-
kee. consigned TO the plaintiff in Iowa,
business, received from the carrier.
Neither the plaintiff nor the brewing
company had any permit to sell intoxl-
eating liquors in that state.
Held, that this was a Wisconsin and
not an Iowa sale within the meaning of
the statute of the latter state that the
title to the purchaser at Milwaukee upon
the delivery of the property to the car
rier. Hence the plaintiff cannot recover
back, under the Iowa statute, what he
had paid for the liquor.
If the brewing company with knoWl-
edge that the liquor was bought for the
purpose of being illegally sold in Iowa,
actively assisted the plaintiff in carry
ing out this Illegal purpose, the sale in
Wisconsin might not support an action
for the purchase price of the property,
one of the parties to the Illegal transact
ton. to recover back what he had paid.
Order reversed. Mitchell, J.
IN re Appeal of Nicholas Dresser, etc,
from an order of the county commits
siOner of Nicollet county, respondent,
Us. Nicholas -Dressan. appellant
chapter 81 Laws 1887 Gen. st. 1894, Sec.
1903 from order of the county commits
sioners laying out public, ditch does
whether the commissioners have exceed
ed their authority by establishing the
ditch so as to drain a public meandered
lake. Order affirmed. Mitchell, J.
In the matter of the probate of the will
of. Ezekiel Thomas, Edward Thomas,
proponent of the last will and tesla
ment of Ezekiel Thomas, deceased, re-
spondent VS.. Hiram II. Thomas and G.
Colburn as DIRECTORS, appellants.
Syllabus.-When the will of the de-
clusively appeared that after the will had
been published the name of one of the
benedciaries (his son Edward) had been
erased and the name of his Edward 81
if this erasure and alteration was made
by the testator himself, it had never
been published or authenticated so as
to make it effectual.
The claim of the contestants was %
that the eraSure and alteration had been
fradulently made by the beneficiary, Ed
~, VI va II A1duS ny tie leSldlOT Hill
self the erasure revoked the devise in
favor of Edward, and the devise in favor
of the wife was Intellectual because the
will as altered was never republished.
Held, That where a part of a will
IS cancelled or erased by the testator
himself with a view as in this case, to
a rev disposition of the property and the
proposed new disposition fails to be car
ried into effect for want of authorization
the presumption in favor of revocation
by the cancellation or erasure will be
repealed, and the will as originally ex-
ecuted Will stand so far as it is practic-
able to ascertain what the original words