The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-05-30
WAKES Up SLEEPY Eye
SUPREME COURT REVERsEs DE-
CISION OF IMPORTANCE TO
BROWN COUNTY TOWN
FOUR OF FIVE REVERSED
Lower Courts Fared BADLY In the
Judgment of the Higher Tri-
bunaI as Expressed
Yesterday.

The supreme court yesterday reversed
four of five decisions handed down yes
terday The syllabi are as follows:
Michael Foil, appellant, VS.. Common
Council of the Village of Sleepy Eye
Lake, respondent.
Syllabus-l. Whether the verdict of the
jury on an appeal in proceedings to lay
out and establish public highway, on
the questions as to the propriety and ne
cessity of the proposed highway, and
whether it will essentially impair the use
of a railroad right of way over which it
is extended, is final and conclusive and
not subject to judicial review, Quere?
2. Such questions are addressed to the
sound judgment and discretion Of the
jury, and, though their verdict be not
conclusive, the court has no power, I'M
der chapter 320r Laws 1895, to direct and
order Judgment, notwithstanding the
same, except in cases where the evidence
is clearly and tndisputably conclusive on
the questions.
8. The fact that the extension of a
public street across the right of way Of
railroad company will cause and ne
shed belonging to the company, the
change of a switch in line of, the new
street, and a Encouragement of some of
its tracks, is not conclusive that the
use of the right of way will be destroy
ed or essentially impaired. Order reversed.
Brown, j.
John Hurst, respondent, vs. Town of
Martinsburg and the Town of yelling
ton, appellants.
Syllabus In proceedings under G..
S. 1884 section 1924, to lay out and es-
tablish town line road the respondent
appeared before the supervisors at the
time appointed for the hearing and took
part in the proceedings: Held, that he
thereby waived the service of notice of
such hearing or proceedings.
z Held, further, that person who
thus appears in such proceedings cannot,
after having waived notice as to himself,
ne ard CINS 1911,
owners interested in the laying out of
such road were not duly served with no
tice, or that the notice was not duly
posted as required by law, except by af-
Tentatively showing that it was not in
fact posted.
8: If the proof of posting the notice
of hearing provided for in such proceed
visors (section 1909, &c. S. 1894, that the
same was duly and properly posted, the
jurisdiction to proceed is complete. And
as against one who has waived all no.
t1ce the determination of the supervisors
on that question is final and conclusive,
in the absence of some affirmative show
ing, that the notice was not in fact post
ed.
4. Section 1924, G. S. 1894, held not I'M
constitutional; nor was it repealed by
chapter $50, Laws of 1891 Order reversed.
Brown, j.
In re construction of egne-Hendrum
Ditch No. l, Iver Lien ct al, appel
lants, VS.. The Board of Commissioners
of Norman county, respondent
Laws of 1887, being an act pro
viding for the drainage of
wet and marshy lands in the interests
of the public health convenience and
welfare held valid as a proper exercise
of the police power.
2 Said chapter was not repealed by
implication by chapter 9S, General Laws
1887. Both acts were intended by the
legislature as independent statutes
g. If the subject of an act of the leg
islature, as stated in the title, be suffi-
GENTLY broad and comprehensive to indi-
cate the general character and purposes
of the act, there is a sufficient compliance
with the constitutional requirement that
the subject of each act of the legislature
shall be expressed in its title.
A. The title to chapter 81 General Laws
of 1887, aforesaid, held a sufficient com
pliance with the constitutional require
ment.
s. 1t is competent for the legislature in
the enactment of laws providing for pub
lie improvements in the interests of the
pubic health, comfort and convenience
| to provide that the cost and expense Oh
such improvements be assessed against
| lands benefited and improved thereby
and chapter 81, aforesaid is not open tC
! the objection that such reassessment is
unequal taxation. Order affirmed
Brown, ].
! Carl Schneider, respondent, VS.. ST Pau
| CITY Hallway Company, appellant.
! Syllabus. In this action, which is
| one to recover damages for personal in.
| Juries, the evidence is examined and held
insufficient to justify finding that plain
| tlts injuries were caused by the neglf
gence of defendant Order reversed ant
new trial granted. Brown. J.
Samuel Swanson, respondent, VS.. Luthe1
Mendenhal as receiver of the Duluth
Street Railway Company, insolvent, ap
pellant.
Syllabus In the selection of jurie.
for the trial of civil actions the prope1
practice is to require the parties to exer
| else their right of peremptory challenge:
alternately, one challenge at time, be
ginning with the defendant.
q Either party may at any time indi
cate to the court that he is Satisfied witt
the jury, and when he does so canno
thereafter, without leave of the court
challenge peremptorily one of the juror!
| so accepted. But If the opposing party
! thereafter makes a further challenge ani
! new juror is called, the right to chal
| lenge such new juror remains and ma,
be exercised unless the party had previ
ously exhausted his challenges. Order
| reversed. brown 7.
/ g.