Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-03
COURT DECISIONS.
OlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRGINiAN-PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are OF lnteres! 10
Our PeoDla
BANK OF rARBoRo V. f. & D. co

Il.
April ), 1900.
IT is \ GOOD DEFENSE TO 4 SUIT
AGAINST THE SURETY ON THE
BOND OF ~ BANK CASHIER, THAT
The SURETY WAS INDUCED TO
GIVE THE BOND BY THE STATE
AII;Ntr OF THE PLAINTIFFS, THAT
IT'S CASHIERS BOOKS HAD
BEEN EXAMINED AND FOUND
CORRECT, AND ALL MONEYS
HANDLED BY HIM ACCOUNTED
FOR, AND THAT THIS STATE
MENT WAS FALSE
The point decided appears from the
opinion OF the court.
The Court says:
In the case at bar the defendant COM
pany has failed to specify in its answer
the breaches of contract by the plain
tim upon which ii relies except in one
instance, and that not very distinctly.
bJt we think sufficiently so 20 admit OF
procf. 1T appears TO US that section & OF
the answer means to allege that the de-
fendant company was induced to re-
rev the bond upon the written state
nent OF the plaintiff bank that the
books and accounts OF the defendant
Michigan had been examined, and
found correct in every respect, and that
all moneys handled by him had been
accounted for. and to further ALICE
that this statement was false. These al
legations amounted 10 Il plea in bar.
which the defendant had a right to
have passed upon before reference
could be made.
BABCoC< V. L. \. TRACTION co.
Supreme Court of California
March II. 1900.
A PASSENGER IN y STREET CAR
IS NOT GUILTY OF CONTRlBU-
TORY NEGLIGENCE IN RISING
FROM HIS SEAT. TO ALIGHT. BE
FORE THE CAR HAS COME TO A
COMPLETE STOP. SUCH PAS
SENGER IS NOT NEGLIGENT IN
STANDING ON THE PLATFORM
OF TIE CAR 1T HE Is NOT FUR
NlSHED WITH y SEAT ON THE
INSIDE.
This was an action by Babcocll for
dana gcs for injuries received by being
thrown from the platform OF car OF
the defendant by jerk of the car while
turning Il curve and when he was about
to alight therefrom. From n judgment
for plaintiff the company appealed.
The court says:
That the evidence given on behalf Of
the plaintiff tended to establish neg-
ligence on the part of defendant is not
open to dispute. and it was for the jury
To determine whether it was sufficient
for that purpose. When the plaintiff
showed that the defendant had assumed
TO carry him as Il passenger upon one
Of is cars. and that while being 50 car
ried he had sustained an injury by
reason OF the manner in which the car
was propelled along it's track, n prma
facic case Of negligence was establish
ed. which. in the absence of any other
evidence. entitled him to recover.
Neither was the court authorized to
withdraw from the jury the dcterm-
nation of the issue OF contributory neg
ligence on the part of the plaintiff. The
court could not declare that it was con-
tributory negligence on his part to
start to set of from the car before IL
had come to "A full stop. There is no
rule of law which requires n passenger
in a street car Go retain his seat or
other position until the car has actually
4, .r--i -. :
observation that thousands, every day.
leave their sea IS 10 get OH Ocforc the
car has stopped, without sustaining any
injury.
The defendant cannot claim that 1t
was negligence on the part OF the plain
tiff to stand up while riding. or to ride
upon the outer part of the car after it
had assumed to carry him as 4 passen-
GER. and had not furnished him with
any seat on the inside of the car. At
frmed.
After fNuleS.