The Saint Paul globe., 1902-11-08

age law, settlement of breach of
promise case, and the number of pub
lications required to make a sprink-
ling assessment valid were some Of the
questions decided by the supreme court
yesterday. Ten decisions were hand
ed down, and in only one of them was
the lower court reversed.
The most important decision was
that quashing the writ of quo war
ranto against the board of county COM
misSioners of Polk county and involv-
ing the constitutionality of the drain
age law. The court held the law of
1901 a valid and constitutional enact
ment.
Former Senator H. F. Stevens, who
drew the law, says the decision means
much for the development of the
Northwest, and also makes the $780,
000 which has been spent and con-
tracted for in the way of bitches legal.
John Utick and others, of Polk coun-
ty, brought up the question of the con-
stitutionality of the law on the ground
that it authorized the taking of prop
erty for the benefit of private enter
prise. The writ was quashed by de-
cision written by Justice Brown.
Mary Brum's Case.
The verdict of the jury in Redwood
county which gave Mary M. Birum $3.50
damages in a breach of promise suit
against Isaac Johnson was affirmed in
a decision written by Justice Lovely.
In 1899 Mary M. Birum, while su
perintending display of chickens at
the Redwood county fair, met Isaac
Johnson. From joining in the praise
of the fowls an acquaintanceship was
formed, which resulted in Johnson
paying the woman attentions. In the
trial of the case before Judge Weber
and jury it was brought out that he
promised to marry the plaintiff as soon
as he returned from a trip to New
Mexico. Johnson returned to Red
wood Falls in June, 1900. but instead of
keeping his promise avoided the plaint-
if by lodging into saloons, stores and
alleys when he saw her coming. She
sued for $4,000 damages, and the jury
gave her one seventh of the amount
asked.
The plaintiff is f1fty-one years old
and had been divorced from her hus-
band. Johnson was a widower, seven
ty-seven years Of age. Johnson ap-
pealed the case to the supreme court,
making the point that there had been
no formal demand made upon him to
keep his engagement, and that he had
not positively refused to carry out the
agreement.
Should Publish Two Notices.
Justice Lovely, of the supreme court,
handed down a decision yesterday
holding that the charter provision of
1887 requiring two publications of no.
tice for judgment on Sprinkling as
SeSSmentS was not changed by the st.
Paul charter of 1891.
Sarah Halves brought action to re-
cover a lot in ST. Paul which had twice
been sold under judgments for sprink-
ling assessments. The lot was Sc
cured by John Fleigler on these judg-
ments. The lower court held the pub
lication of the notice for judgment
having been published but once, the
sale was invalid. Justice Lovely af-
firms the decision of the lower court,
and, while holding the validity of the
sprinkling tax, decides in order to Sc
cure judgment for a failure to pay
that notice must be published twice in
the official paper.
Following are the decisions:
Mary M. Birum, respondent, VS.. Isaac
Johnson, appellant.
SyllabuS-1. Where an engagement of
marriage is entered into to take place on
the happening of a future event, the law
implies that the promise shall be full
filed within a reasonable time thereafter,
which may depend where no specific date
is named, upon the character of such
event.
2. Where a party has promised an
other to fulfill a marriage contract on
return from a trip abroad, lapse of time
and conduct of such party after his re-
turn, which show that he does not intend
to fulfill his promise, as under the facts
of this case, may be regarded as the
equivalent of a refusal to do so and to
dispense with request to perform mar
riage by the other party.
3. In actions of this nature it is ad-
missable to establish the pecuniary abil-
ity of defendant in the first instance to
show the substantial injury which plain
tiff has sustained.
a. In such case evidence of the
financial standing of the defendant may
be shown by proof of his reputed
pecuniary ability.
Order affirmed. Lovely, ].