The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-06-10

senger Trains--Big Batch of De-
cfsions Handed Down Yesterday
by the States Highest Judicial
Tribunal.
The supreme court yesterday did some
thing unusual in reversing an order Of the
railroad and warehouse commission on
the ground that 1t was unreasonable, al
though Justice Buck dissents from the
opinion of the majority Of the bench,
which Is signed by Justice Mitchell.
The commission ordered the Minneapo-
lis C st. Louis road to put in a station
at Emmons, just this side of the Iowa
line In Freedom county. The people Pc
tit1oned for 1t on the ground that they
either had to go five or six miles to Twin
Lakes. Mimi. or go to Norman, just over
the line In Iowa, about a mic from EN-
mons. Emmons is not an incorporated vii
lage. and Justice Buck dissents from the
court in its ruling In this regard. The
majority holds that tho term village as
In the law 1t is used in connection with
the term borough. which is always used
to designate a corporate body Justice
Buck. however. cites Webster's unabridg-
ed and Andersonn's dictionary of law to
show that village" need not be incor-
proated to entitle it to the protection of
the law.
Justice Buck thinks that the people of
Emmons are therefore entitled to their
station. without crossing the state line,
out the court holds in the majority opin-
lon that 1t would be unjust to require
railroad companies to build double sta
tons wherever they cross state lines.
The argument that people are compelled
to go across the state line to board trains
the court dtsposes of with little con-
sheraton. I'VE have been led to as
sumo" it remarks, that Iowa is a CIV
flized community, and that people who
go there are accorded the protection of
laws equally benefcent with our own"
Inc syllabus of the decision Is as follows:
state or Minnesota, eX, rel. Railroad and
Warehouse Commission, respondent, VS.
minneapolis & st. Louis Railroad Com
pany, appellant. -
Syllabus-Laws 1897 chapter 81. provides
that all railroad companies shalt pro
Vlde at all villages and boroughs'' on
their respective roads, depots with suita-
ole waning rooms for the protection and
ACCOMMODATION OF passengers and freight
freight.
Held, that the word Village" must be
ated villages
The facts considered and held not to
Justify an order of the railroad and ware
mouse commissioners requiring the de-
Tendant to build and maintain passen-
ger station at an unincorporated village
or 100 inhabitants situated in strictly
rural and agricultural part of the state
ana Within seven-tenths of a mile Of an
existing passenger and freight Station
nEFhe TACT that the existing station is sit
uated across the state line in another
STATE is. IN and OF itself, no reason for
requiring the defendant to build and
maintain another station. Judgment re-
yersed. -Mifchel1 T
8. Two of the other decisions of yester-
DAY are also of Importance to railroad
companies. The syllabi are: :~"' @,-sfF*'
N. Il. Burnett; respondent: ys. Great
Northern Railway Company, appellant.
Syllabus. Evidence held to sustain
the verdict in this case to the effect that
me DEFENDANT; by means of. it's bitches
epegllgentlX diverted. the water. Of a nat
ura1 water course and discharged them
upon the land of the plaintiff to his in
,,2.Witnesses whose competency has been
SHOWN may state the result of their ac-
tua1 knowledge and observation p
- 5.2 requests for instructions to the il1ry.
when VIM are an incomplete statement of the
law and misleading, or which assume as
true disputed facts are erroneous Ger
|. tain requests in this case Considered and
neld that the trial. court rightly, refused
them.
A. The measure of damages for the loss
of growing crops is their value at the
time the loss occurred, to be determined
Dy facts then existing.
Held, that the damages awarded in this
case are not excessive. Order affirmed.
Start c. J..
George Walters. respondent, vs. Minneap-
n
way Company, appellant
l. In determining the obligations and
Liabilities oait of the defendant herein under
maintenance of farm crossing, the prac-
teal construction Of the contract by the
parties held to be controlling.
docs E nat 4, nnat the evidence in this case
that the defendant was guilty of neeIi-
gence In maintaining the farm crossing
IN question Judgment reversed.
Other decisions handed down, all bv
Judge Mitchell. were:
Andrew Stein. respondent, vs. Bnta
Helm ct al, defendants; Brita HELM ap-
peiiant. Judgment affirmed.
A. F. Smith ct al, etc, appellants va
George T. Barr ct al, defendants Judg-
ment reversed.
New York, appellant. VS.. Elvira M.
Greys, as ADMINISTRATIVE of the estate of
p. w; Greys, deceased, respondent. Or
der affirmed.
John T. Watt, respondent, VS.. First Ma
tional Bank Of Lake Benton, Mimi, ap-
pellant. Order affirmed
Peter Fairweather, respondent, vs. Ole
Nelson ct al, defendants; Fred Fiedt. ap-
peIiant Order reversed.
Cornish, Curtis s. Greene Company.
plaintiff, respondent, vs.. Fred Marty ct
al, defendants; Fred Marty appellant :
Pioneer Pasteurizing Company, defend.
ant. respondent. Order affirmed
Edward ]. Cleary, appellant, VS.. Da-
kota Packing Company. respondent Or
der affirmed.
John Cotter. as guardian of the person
and estate Of VIII T. Egan, respondent,
vs.: The Royal Neighbors of America, ap-
pellants. Judgment reversed
Julius A. Storch and F. Storch. appel
liant. VS.. Reinheldt e. Duhnke ct al, re-
spondents. Order affirmed.
Ferdinand F. Fritz, appellant, VS..
Julia Ramspett. respondent Order modi-
fed.
Armour Packing Company, appellant,
VS.. George H. Brown, doing business az
the Meat and Provision Company. de-
PENDANT; Louis A. Hubachek, garnishee.
respondent. Order affirmed.
G.. Ida Roberts. respondent, vs. Village
Of st. James, appellant. Order affirmed