New-York tribune., 1900-07-29
DID HE OFFER $1,000 TO SAVE his TrFE'
SUIT FOR THIS sum BROUGHT AGAINST An
INDIANA FARMER

INDIANAPOLIS July 2s (SpeciaD.-A case involv-
ing some peculiar features has Just come UP 10
the Supreme Court Of the State from Grant County,
and the Court Is asked to decide the question to
the validity of an alleged contract made under
undue excitement and attended by circumstances
which might reasonably be held TO render hus-
hand unaccountable for his acts Marion Rether-
ford and William Miller are the plaintiffs and
David H. HighIey IS defendant, and the amount in
controversy is $1,000
Early in the spring Mr.. Highley. who is pros
porous farmer Of Grant County, and hts aged wife
were returning home from Sunday night services.
There had been heavy rains in the day and even
ing and just as they reached the middle Of the
bridge over Pipe Creek the structure gave way
under q rush OF water and both thrown out
of their buggy into the raging current. Mr.. High
ley was separated from his wife and reached the
shore a short distance down the stream Running
10 the home OF Rutherford, he told what had hap
pened. Miller was also awakened, and the three
started back to the creek to find Mrs. HIghley.
SeveEal other persons in the village near at hand
were awakened and Joined the party at the creek.
but nothing could be of Mrs. Highley, and it
was regarded hazardous to enter the stream
and begin search for her body. In response TO
the calling of the distracted husband a voice came
out of the water, and Mrs. Hlghley soon made
those on the bank understand that she was fast
on thorn tree which stood on the bank OF the
stream. but which then completely surrounded
by water. When the voice Of the wife reached
the ears of the husband he begged the crowd to
attempt her rescue, out everybody STOOD pack TOT
fear of the raging waters which rising higher
every moment.
out said the excited husband
No one seemed disposed 10 take the risk, and the
much debating. Retherford and Miller entered the
stream and with graf difficulty brought Mrs. High
ley safely shore from her periloUS position in the
thorn Several days afterward the reSCuers
reminded Mr.. Highey of his offer, but he could not
remember that he had made it. Witnesses were
produced to prove that the reward offered but
Hghley denied IL. and suit was entered TO enforce
collection.
In his reply TO the suit Highley sets up that he
does not remember making any promise of reward
for the rescue Of his wife. but if ne did ne was
laboring under much excitement the time that
the plaintiffs knowing his condition, took advan-
tage of the circumstances to perform service for
reward which they should have done for the sake Of
humanity and that the claim is wholly mercenary
and should not be declared legal by the courts. He
also shows that Mrs. Highley is old woman now,
make a living: that the payment of so large a sum
would seriously cripple him financially and the
saving OF his wife would thus be made the of
placing a debt upon him that he could never uGui-
date. He also asserts that II he offered a reward
at all. the resCuers were under obligations take
in consideration all the circumstances of the case
and that when they entered the stream and
he was not able to pay so large a sum for her
rescue.
The plaintiffs affirm that the offer OF the reward
and their entering upon the OF Mrs High
ley amounted a contract, and that they incurred
great personal risk in its performance, and hav-
ing faithfully carried out their part OF the contract
the Court should require Highley to fulfil his