The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-11-30
of County Commissioners of Hennepin

Of County Commissioners Of Hennepin
County, respondent.
Chapter IS, G.. L. 1887, so far as it relates
to the establishment of uniform height
of water in Lake Minnetonka, held, to
have delegated to the board of county
commissioners. of Hennepin county the
legislative duty of exercising the power
of eminent domain and to have imposed
upon the district court for that county
the judicial functions Of determining
whether such Improvement was for a
public use.
Under chapter IS, G. L. 1897, as applied
to the Lake Minnetonka Improvement, it
is held that of such act authorizing
the district court upon presentation of
petition for the appointment of ap-
pIalsers, if lit shall be satisfied that
the public interests will be advanced
is not to be construed as imposing legiS-
lative powers upon the judiciary, but as
limited to the judicial function of de-
termining whether such Improvement is
public use.
That further provision in section 6.
chapter &c, authorizing the district court
to enlarge the height of the dam as eS-
tablshed by the board of commissioners
imposes legislative duties upon such court
and is invalid
That Notwithstanding the illegality of
such imposition of legislative duty upon
the court, the act is in other respects
complete, and such illegal provision may
be eliminated from it without detriment
\ thereto and it follows that,
The exercise of the power OF eminent
domain in the Minnetonka lake improve
ment, under the statutes referred to, was
not in violation of section /, article A..
State Constitution, since it does not nee
eSsarily impose legislative duties upon
the judiciary in order to effectuate such
improvement, and held, that no illegal
powers were exercised therein IN this
case.
The provision in chapter So, for assess
ments upon shore lots for the purpose of
paying for local improvements consid-
| II I1o11 1ao nod hxYc
ton l. article 9, of the State Constitution,
as amended in 1881, which authorizes spe-
cial assessments for such purposes with.
out reference to the cash valuation of
the property upon which the burden is
imposed. Order affirmed.
Lovely, J.
State of Minnesota ex rel. Clay County
Abstract Company, appellant, vs.. e.
D. McCubrey, clerk of the district
court of Clay county, Minnesota. re-
spondent.
SS7 construed. and held to authorize and
permit the examination and inspection
of the records and files in the office OF
the office OF the clerk of the district
court by any and all citizens. without
limitation as to any particular person,
or class of persons, and are not repug-
nant to the constitution, either as arbi-
trary, unequal or class legislation
The right to inspect and examine pub
lie records by person having no inter-
est therein does not exist at common
law, and the purpose of the statutes
afGIesaid was to extend that right or
privilege to all citizens; it was coInpe-
tent tor the legislature to do so, and to
surround. the privilege thus extended
with such restrictions and limitations
as that body deemed necessary and
proper.
Such statutes do not authorize an ex-
animation or inspection OF the records
and files in the Office OF the clerk of the
RI 1Yt nv n
purpose thereof is to complete and GER
tify to abstracts Of title to real estate.
When such is the purpose of an eXam1-
nation. the clerk may refuse to permit it
to be made. A person desiring an exam
nation or inspection of the records for
that purpose is required by the statutes
to apply to the clerk thereof; and that
officer, as custodian Of the records. may
determine for what purpose an intended
inspection thereof is demanded. Order
affirmed Brown, ].
Butler-Ryan Company, respondent. VS.:
Ezra T. Williams. T. H. Williams and
]. r. Williams, copartners as e. L.
Williams & Sons, appellants.
A steam tug is bound to bring to the
performance of the duty it assumes rea-
sonaSfe skill and care in everything re-
lating to the work. The want of such
skill and care is negligence, and ne own
er of the tug Is liable for the full meas
ure of the consequences. y.
Held In an action brought by plaintiff,
a corporation, to recover damages for IN
jurieS done to certain piling which, as
a government contractor, it had properly
placed in a canal in order to protect per-
manent work in process of construction,
that there was evidence sufficient to war
rant finding by the jury that steam
tug owned by defendants negligently
and improperly managed loaded scow
which it was towing, and that this negli-
gence was the nredomina ting efficient
cause. of the injury to the pilng,. al
though the injuries were the Immediate
acts of another vessel, not belonging to
defendants. And that the evidence was
sufficient to justify the jury in finding
that this vessel was not neglgently han
died or managed.
Held, that the definition of proximate
cause as given to the jury by the court,
in it's charge, was sufficiently complete
and comprehensive and that the court
did not err when it declined to give GER
tain Instructions proposed by defendants
counsel bearing upon this question. Or
der affirmed. Collins, J.