The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1901-06-15

the interior. Inn McGuire's suit aeainsA
the company for damages for the severs
injuries he received, 1t was conceded tha
directive condition Of the pole caused the
accident. The telephone company used
the poles Of the Rochester Gas and cleo.
trlc company as part Of its permanent
mes, by license Of the owner, and this
pole' winch belongs to that company. had
Deen round by its foreman. months be.
lore the accident, to be decayed and un.
sare. A judgment on a verdict in favor
OF the plaintiff was unanimously ~
firmed by the Appellate Division Of the
Fourth Department, and that decision
was recently upheld by the Court of Ap-
peais. by vote Of to 3. Judge Cullen.
giving the opinion Of the court, holdS
1hat the telephone company through NOT
owning the pole, owed a duty to its lineA
men to see to it that proper inspection
was made OF the poles, to see that they
were capable of supporting the men
While at work. Reasonable care on the
part of the company in providing a rea-
sonably safe place. for themen to work
involved such inspection, notwithstand.
Ing the pole belonged to the other CONS
pany. Chief Judge Parker, giving a disc
senting opinion. concurred in by Judges
Gray and Haight, holds that a person
VINO uses pole. bulldog, steamboat, Of
other property Of another as q mere lie
censee-such property remaining in the
control and possession Of the owners
not bound to establish system of in.
spection and repairs in regard to such
property in order to protect his employees
from injury because Of hidden defect
only discoverable by a system Of inspec<
ton involving the necessity of dominion
over the property.
Multiplicity Of beneficiaries. A some
What complicated provision of the will OF
I. Addison Richards was passed upon by
Justice Lawrence recently in supreme
court, special term, in an action brought
by the Central Trust company as execu~
tor, against Jabez J. Richards and 9TH
ers for its construction. The. testator
gave his residuary estate equally to my
brothers and sisters, and their children
living at the time Of my decease, and
also the father and brothers of my be.
loved wife and their children now living,
who may continue to be living at my deA.
cease" The testator left surviving two
brothers and two sisters, twenty-nine
nephews and nieces, some Of whose par.
ents We're living and some deceased at
the date Of his death: two grandnephewa
| the children of a deceased daughter OF
| his deceased brother, and one grand
| niece and three grand nephews, this
| children of a deceased son of his living
sister. There We're also living at the date
| of testator's death three Of his deceased
{ wife's brothers, Of whom ont had two
sons, another one son, and the other no
children. Justice Lawrence comes to the
conclusion that the testator intended that
| his estate should be divided per capita
| between his brothers and sisters and the
| children of such brothers and sisters
who might be living at the time Of his
| death. and the testator's wife's brothers
and their children who might then be
living at the time Of his DEATH" The
| court therefore directs that such estate
shall be divided into forty-one shares.
and that one Of such shares 10 to go to
each living brother and sister and neph-
ew and niece of the testator. and each
living brother and nephew Of his wife.