The Saint Paul globe., 1902-02-01
Divorce Is Denied.
Emma Retpling. annellant. VS.. ..rbeod.,

Emma Retbling, appellant, VS.. Theodore
Reibling, respondent
Per Curiam: Appellant sued for di-
Vorce from her husband on the grounds
OF cruel and inhuman treatment and ha-
nltual drunkenness. Defendant denied
the charges and filed a cross bill for
divorce from his wife on the ground. of
cruel and inhuman treatment.
The trial court found against the cons,
tentlons of both parties, denying either,
OF them relief. Appellant appea led from
the decision on the ground that, as
against herself, it was not supported .by
the facts, and that she was entitled to a
divorce, especially upon the charge of
drunkenness.
The record discloseg an unfortunate
condition of lncompatiblity, but we agree
with the trial judge that both parties
are at fault, and that neither of them is
entitled to relief at the hands of the
court Order affirmed.
Lower Court Erred.
Adelia G. Bayard, appellant VS.. The
Palace Clothing House Company, a cor
poratlon, respondent.
In an action for damages alleged to
have been caused by a basket falling
from the Wire of a cash or bundle car
11ers system, by reason of it's defective
and dangerous condition. held:
!. 1t was an error to sustain an ob1ec-
ton to question which was intended to
show that other baskets of the same sys-
tenn had fallen on prior occasions. Ap-
p6lldiiJ WAS NOI, III the instance, re-
qUired to prove that such baskets fell
because of a defective system or imper-
feet construction.
2 1t was not error to refuse a motion
to amend the complaint by adding the in
jury occurred through improper operation
Of the system
s. other rulingssof the court examined.
and sustained. Order reversed and
new trial granted. Lewis, ].
Change of Beneficiary.
Fred Schoenau ct al. respondents VS.
Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of
United Workmen ct al, defendants;
Louisa Wolf, appellant ~
Inc beneficiary in certificate of men,
bershlp IN mutual benefit association
has no vested interest therein but a.
mere expectancy, liable to be terminated
at any time at the will of the member.
The certificate of membership and the
constitution and bylaws constitute the
contract between the member and the as
Soclaton, and not with the beneficiary.
The regulations governing a revocation
or change of beneficiary are made for
the protection of the association, and to
carry into effect the will and intention
OF the member and may be waived or
varied by the association in order to ac-
comDlish that result.
The constitution of the association un-
der consideration provided: ANY member
desiring to make a new direction as to
tie payment of hIS beneficiary certificate
may do so by authorizing such change in
writing upon the back thereof ia the
form prescribed, attested by the recorder
seal of the lodge attached, and. delivery
oil ms certificate and payment of so
cents to the recorder whereupon the
change shall at once take effect. The
recorder SHALL thereupon make a record
thereof. and report the same to the
grand recorder, forwarding the 80 cents
and certificate. The grand recorder
shall thereupon issue a new certificate
as directed having the same number and
conditions as the Old
Just prior to his death the member
signed document changing the bene-
hclary, which was attested to by the
recorder and sealed with the seal Of the
lodge. This instrument was on a form
furnished by the recorder, and was not
the one usually filled out on the back of
the certificate. After execution it was
delivered to the recorder and the fee
paid. Held. it was substantially as re-
Quired by the provisions of the constitu-
ton, and if not in strict conformity
Herewith, the association waived the
variance, and the former beneficiary can
not question it. OrGer affirmed.
Lewis, j.
Verdict Not Excessive.
Alexander Anderson, respondent, VS.. The
Chicago. Milwaukee & st. Paul Railway
Company, appellant. 81
1. The provision 7of the General Statut aS
1894. section 2710, requiring railroad COM
panies doing business in this state To fur-
nish shippers Of live stock, horses, cattle,
hseep, etc, with proper facilities to con-
vey and transports the same does not au-
thorlze such companiessto maintain stock
yards in an improper manner so as to
constitute nuisance, to the injury of
adjacent propertys owners.
Evidence in this case<considered and
held to justify a verdict for damages in
behalf of plaintiff for injuries sustained
by him through the maintenance of stock
yards in an improper and unhealthy
manner, adjacent to his family residence.
g. Held, that verdict of 1853, for con-
tinuance of nuisance in the fnainte-.
nance of such stock yards for a period of
more than four months is not excessive.
Order affirmed. Lovely, ].
Contract Not Void.
Hollis Burton,s doing business as n. Bur-
ton & Co., appellant, VS.. Charles Gage
and Alex Kerr, copartners as Gage e
Kerr; G. A. Smith Lumber Company,
a corporation, and Edward G. Rogers,
as clerk of said court, respondents
1. A logging contract between a lumber
company and the contractor who had
greed tn Fnerf0rn1F services fbHraain dxxs1