Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1900-11-27
MRS. McDONALD'S CASE.

In the case of Mary E. Mcdonald, of
this city, VS.. The Provident Savings
Life Assurance Society, the Supreme
Court of this state has laid down rule
that minimizes the effect of the verdict
of jury, upon disputed questions of
fact. The rule as now stated by JUS
tice Marshall, who wrote the opinion,
and presumably by his associates too,
as there was no dissent expressed, is
that the party upon whom the burden
of proof rests must establish his conten-
ton BY what appears to the Supreme
Court 90 be a preponderance of the
evidence, else verdict of the jury in
his favor will be reversed. The para
graph of the Supreme Courts opinion
stating this rule is as follows:
Where there are conflicting reason
able differences and the situation will
not reasonably admit of decision that
those pointing one way preponderate
over those pointing the other, as mat
ter of law the case, from the standpoint
of the party on whom the burden of
proof rests, fails, and the question pre-
sented for decision is one of law for the
court"
In accordance with this rule the court
reversed verdict in favor of Mrs. Nc
Donald She claimed that the insur-
ance company had waived cash pay
ment of the premium and accepted Mr..
McDonald's note instead of cash. The
company denied this. Upon that dis
puted question of fact it did not appear
to the court that Mrs Mcdonald had u
prepondrrance of evidence in her favor
Hence the court reversed the verdict.
Editors Oh newspapers are likely to
be poor judges of the intricacies OF law,
but nevertheless some things in the law
have become so well fixed and so gener-
ally known that they are understood by
the average man as we'll as by lawyers.
Among these automatic things is,
or at least was until this decision was
rendered, the rule that the jury de-
cides all questions of fact, weighs the
evidence, and judges the credibility of
of the witnesses, and that its verdict
cannot be reversed even if it appears to
be against the weight of the evidence
unless it is so clearly against the over
whelming weight of evidence as to
raise presumption that the verdict
was founded upon bias or prejudice.
This hitherto well established rule is
recognized in the opinion of the Su-
preme Court in Mrs McDonald's case,
for the court says just before the para
graph above quoted
1T is often said, and is the settled
! law, that where there is but ore reason
| able inference it is the duty of the court
to draw it as matter of law; but where
| the evidence will admit of conflicting
| reasonable differences, the proper in
ference is 10 be drawn by the jury"
Another legal rule known to every
body is that in every law suit the bur-
den of proof is upon one party or the
other. If 'the settled law" above
quoted from the courts opinion, applies
only to cases where there is no burden
of proof resting upon either party,
there can not be case to which it will
apply. And therefore it looks as if the
rule laid down in Mrs McDonald's case
is in hopeless conflict with ''the settled
| law"
The PILOT does not often comment
upon the decisions of the courts, but, in
the present instance, our interest in
Mrs. Mcdonald as friend and neigh
Dor and an altogether amiable and de-
serving woman leads us to deeply re-
greet her misfortune in losing her case
in this altogether inscrutable way.