Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-01-29

|DNABOYS1OGOIOS[A
Seventy Apply at the Naval Re-
cruiting Station For Posi-
tions in Navy.
Court Holds Railroad Not Liable
For Loss Of Jewelry Sample
Trunks.
Davenport Papers Marry Erron'
eously Charlie Walsh---
His Vile Objects.

DoySAPVAt 0PSA0 iAoAAy 0AAVAA
eously Charlie Walsh---
His Vile Objects.
Special to Times Republican.
Des Moines Jan. 29.-For the first
time in its history, at least its recent /
history. recruiting officers are in Iowa
engaged in securing Iowa boys for en-
l;stment in the navy. A naval recruit
ing office was opened here yesterday in
charge of Lieut.. w. d. Blomer,
of the navy. and several assistants.
The fact of their coming had been liber-
aily advertised and as a result about
seventy young men showed up at the
recruiting Ssation to consider the life of
with the officers. About thirty of those
Who applied We're examined and fifteen
we're accepted and will be- sworn in at
once. 1t is expected that the officers
viii secure forty or fifty recruits here,
mostly from the Immediate vicinity OF
Des Moines as the offers held out are
slluring. The recruiting force came
from St. Paul, where they got sixty six
recruits. and before that they had been
ii Milwaukee and secured 1903. They
willSrennain here until Friday, when they
Will go to Creston for two days and
then to Kansas City. A recruiting sta
tion for the army is maintained here
regularly, but this is the first time sail-
ors have been sought in Iowa. The re-
scruits are either enlisted as landsmen
or apprentices. The former are sent 10
San Francisco. where they are to go on
"a training ship for SIX months and the
apprentices are sent to Norfolk.
A decision of the Iowa supreme court
yesterday of especial interest to all
tarveling men was thac in the case of
the Weber Company against the Omaha.
railroad from OBiien county. A solici-9
tor for the company checked as baggage
three trunks, one OF which contained
Jewelry samples. and this one was lost.
Suit was brought to recover. Ii was
shown that the travelling man knew of
the rule of the company forbldding
agents to accept as baggage jawelry
cases, for the company ne represented
had applied for permit and had failed
tic get it because of some defect II the
,ond offered. The supreme court de-
scided that therefore the company is not
liable either as a carrier or as a ware
houssman, and says: His want of au-s
thofity to receive them (the jewelry
cases) IN any capacity was we'll known
to appellant and therefore no liability on
the part of the defendant in that respect
was incurred. Indeed, 1t is preposter-
Gus under the plain facts in the case to.
attempt to charge the defendant with
more than a thousand dollars worth of
'Jewelry without payment of extra COM
rensation except the compensation paid
because of the weight of the trunks.
checked, and in the face of a WELL
known regulation that jewelry samples
Should not be received without a per-
nit. To deliver to the agent of the COM.
pany for checking trunks containing
property of this character and value
without notice 10 the agent of their con
tents was a fraud upon the company,
which would relisye the company from
any liability whatever even for gross
sengligence Of its servants. This fixes
2 rule for the guidance of travelling men
who carry valuable samples in Iowa and
completely upholds wel-known rule
of most of the companies.
sAs
In au interesting case from Marshall
county the supreme court passed on a.
question of interest TO lawyers chiefly
involving the right of a party to d suit
to change his mind N the middle of a
trial. This va > the case of Daniel Ben
soE against the Northwestern, involv-
ing DANA ses for failure 10 furnish cars
After a jury had beer empaneled the
railroad company made an offer to con-
fes.s Judgment for 500 and costs. Plain
tiff refused. but after one Witness had
testified the offer previously made was
accepted and Judge Caswell permitted.
this termination of the case. The cenl-s
spany appealed and the supreme cour.
decides that the plaintiff having onc@
rejected the offer can not afterwards
accept ii: in short has no right To.
change his mind in that way. The court
says: When one has an option to ac-s
scept or reject an offer he IS bound by
the election first made and can not af-
terwa,'ds change his mind and bind the
other party by his subsequent action.
When the offer 10 rejected the proposi-
#tion is in effect withGrawn.s except sas it
may influence the question of COSTS and
unless re- submitted there is no offer 10
accept. This is the rule applying to
contracts. and We think the same rule
should be applied to offers to confess. "a $
they are not materially different from
contract rights contrary decision
would place the party making the offer
at decided disadvantage and ALLOW
him to whom the eftcr was made To
speculate on the outcome of the trial.
In the case at bar he offer was reject
ed. After ore Witness had been exam
ined and his cross-examination had
been nearly completed, plaintiff
changed his mind and concluded TO sau-
oept the offer. Whether or not this Was
due to something that developed during
the examination favorable to defendant
does not appear. But this much is cef-
tain, that il we sustain the procedure
adopted in this case it would ALLOW
plaintiff TO speculate on the trial and
put tie defendant at a decided disad-
Vantage. Plaintiff had The right when.
the offer was made TO either accept or
reject It. If he had accepted, that was
the end of the case. If he rejected. he
must be held to have elected to proceed
with the trial and take his chances on
the verdict. Whatever his decision, he
was bound thereby and could not after
wards change his mind and insist that
defendant hold the offer open for his
benefit. Election once made is binding. ;"