The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-08-21

Inougn not common law right, is held
in New Jersey case. to belong to
passenger after the carrier has for
long time acquiesced and made provi
sion for the carriage of such packages
until due notice of the RECESSION of tn,
permission.
Catherine Sturgis, who died in 1877 il
New York city, where she resided, af
ter bequeathing fund to a designated
| person for life, gave it, after the deati
of the beneficiary, to the seleetmen OF
other municipal authorities of the Eas
parish of the town of BarnstabIe, Mass.
IN trust, to apply the income. in theil
! discretion, for the relief of respectable
! natiVe-born persons in reduced circum.
stances in the parish who were mo-
wholly dependent upon the town or par.
lsh for their support. In proceedings
Drought before exSurrogate Arnold t.
test the validity of this provision, it ap.
peared that there are no such officers
as the selectmen of the parish, ant
none known as or having the functions
OF municipal authorities The parish
named forms, with a number of Other
| villages, the town of Barnstable. The
town has selectmen, who are the as.
SCISSORS and oVerseers of the poor. Sur.
rogate Varnum, to whom the matter
was submitted for decision, holds that
as neither the town of Barnstable MOI
us seiectmen would have been capable
under the laws of Massachusetts,. OF
taxing the Sift, it had been given ex.
pressly to them, and, as the laws OF
New York require, in addition to the
circumstance that the objects or pur.
poses OF the bequest are of such a char
acter that 1t could or might be effect.
uated in the place where it was intend.
eu ny the testator TO be administered
anu there was no such body in the pres
ent instance, the bequest was void. The
properly attempted to be disposed OF
py TINS provision of the will therefore
passes. the court holds, to those II
whom the testatrix has. given her resid-
uary estate.
A Judgment on a verdict for $1,000. re.
covered by Lottie Lichtenstein in he,
suit against the mayor, ETC.. for a per-
sonar INJURY she sustained while cross
ing SeVenty-ninth street, at Second
avenue, New York city, on the Sth OF
Narcn, 1898, has been reversed by the
court OF appeals. When, with a child in
her arms, Mrs. Lichtenstein reached the
crossing, she found it covered with
water to the depth Of one foot and. con-
sequently, that it was practically i'm
passaple. Upon each side of the cross
walk there We're ridges or entertainments
Oh Ice, mud, stones and snow. which
We're from one to three feet in height
She endeavored to cross, as others did
py walking upon one of the ridges by
the slde OF the crosswalk. While doine
SO she slipped, fell, and was seriously
INJURED. This accumulation of water
was occaStoned by the omission of the
city authorities to remove obstructions
which existed and remained in the gut
ters or the street, so that the water in
stead OF being taken off in the usual
manner, ran on to the crossWalk. and
was there tmpounded by the embank-
inents which We're on either side. This
condition had existed at that place fol-
az least month before the accident
justice O'Brien, giving the opinion Of
the court which is concurred in by
ohieI Judge Parker, and Judges Gray
ana Halght, holds that plaintiff had nc
cause of action against the CITY. which
was not bound to remove ice and snow
from the road way of its streets. Judge
Martin gave dissenting opinion. which
was concurred in by Judges Bartlett
and Vann, holding that the question OF
defendant's negligence and the plain,
TIL s freedom from contributory negli-
| gence We're, under the evidence, clearly
questions Of fact for the jury,
susan Brady secured Judgment on a
verdict in her favor, on the trial of her
suit against Mrs. Margaret L. ". Sben.
ard, for damages for personal in
Juries, Mrs. Shepard at the time
or the accident, on December
II, 1895, was the owner and in possession
OF the New York Mail and Express
building, on the west side of Broadway,
below Fulton street. In the sidewalk in
front of the building was coalhole
which opened into vault underneath
The plaintiff alleged that the New Jer-
sey Trucking company with the know
ledge and consent of the defendant. was
engaged in the delivery of coal there
and negligently permitted the coalhole
| TO be uncovered, unprotected and I'M
| guarded, and the plaintiff fell in On the
trial it appeared that on the 5th OF
August, 1895, the Manhattan Coal COM
pany contracted with the Mail and Elk.
press Publishing company, the tenant OF
| the building, to supply coal for a year
| The coal was put in vault under the
| sidewalk through an opening "a by 8;
| inches, which was covered when not
used by an iron CRATE weighing 24C
pounds. The coal company employed the
| trucking company to deliver a load OF
| coal on the 18th of December 1895. The
! Judgment has now been reversed by the
| first appellate division Justice Me
Laughlin, giving the opinion, says that
| Mrs. Shepard, "as owner of the build
ing, was undoubtedly under a legal OBJ
| legation to see to it that this opening
was kept in a safe condition, so that s
| person lawfully passing along the side
walk would not sustain injury by rea-
| son of it; but the cover was so con-
| structed and arranged that it would be
| securely held in it's place, so that il
| could not be removed except by design
| and this was all that she was required
| to do. She was not bound to guard
! against its unauthorized removal She
| could not be held liable for its removal
unless she knew or ought to have
known of it. This the testimony failed
| to show"
| The performance Of services of a pc
culiar character, the value of which
| cannot be estimated by a pecuniary
standard, under parol contract fol
| the purchase of real estate, Is held In
| Minnesota sufficient to take the con-
| tract out of the statute of frauds,--es-
pecially when it is impossible to restore
the purchaser to his original situation
| The mere expression of dissatisfac-
| ton with an article furnished under a
contract providing that it shall be sat
| isfactOry, is held insufficient in an Ala
| baIha case to justify termination OF
| the contract when there was no actual
| dissatisfaction; and slight defect in
small quantity of material delivered
under contract for successive ship
ments is held insufficient to justify an
abandonment of the entire contract.
| A passenger who leaves his seat in q
| car on a dummy railroad, and goes
| down on the lower step of the back
platform as the train slows up for a
street crossing where he intends to
stop, while it is passing over the street
at a speed of about 8 miles an hour, Is
held in an Alabama case to be not gull
| ty of negligence as matter of law
which will preclude his recovery for in
| juries caused by a sudden jerk of the
car which throws him to the ground.