The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-11-28
MUST NOT CONFUSE
MAN WITH HIS Dog
Supreme Court Grants New
Trial to Weinholzer, Whose
Canine Got Him Into Trouble.

Because c.. D. O'Brien took occasion
to make remarks derogatory to the
character of Anton Weinholzer and
the reputation of his Empire theater
in case in which only the character
and disposition Of Mr.. Weinholzer's
dog were involved, and because Judge
Orr failed to caution Mr.. O'Brien
against taking such liberty, the SUI
preme court has granted a new trial of
the case of G. M. Fisher, respondent,
against Anton Weinholzer ct al, ap-
pellants.
In trial before Judge Orr, in the
Ramsey county district court, Mr..
Fisher secured verdict of $605 by
reason of the fact that he was bitten
by Weinholzer's dog.
In the presentation of the appeal to
the supreme court it was shown that
in the original trial c. D. O'Brien, as
attorney for Fisher, severely attacked
the character of Weinholzer in his adj
dress to the jury, and asserted that
Weinholzer's business should discreoft
his testimony.
Judge Orr denied a motion for new
trial on this ground, asserting that he
had instructed the jury to pay no at
tention to the statements to which OBJ
lection had been made.
The supreme court reverSeS the or
der Of the trial court and grants a new
trial.
Verdict Is Set Aside.
Henry Rolette's verdict Of $500
against the Great Northern road for
injuries received in falling from the
platform of a moving train is wiped
out by the supreme court.
The accident, which was the basis Of
Rolette's suit, occurred on July Is,
1900. Rolette had a ticket from Wa
dena to CaSS Lake on an excursion
train, and it was alleged, on his be-
half, that the train was SO crowded he
was obliged to stand on the platform
Of a car, and that he was thrown from
the train by it's violent motion. He de-
manded S10,56S.50, and the jury fixed
his damages at $1,000. The case was
heard at Wadena before Judge Jag
gard, Of the Ramsey county district
court.
r. The opinion of the supreme court in
this case is written by Justice Collins.
The syllabus is as follows:
The Courts View
l. The fact that there are no seats
in railway cars does not justify a person
in riding on the platform while the train
- III lI1OtlOll, lOF 81 lung DIS lie Call liflU
standing room by reasonable effort on the
inside, it is his duty to be there. Where
it is unnecessary to stand or ride upon
the platform, going there or standing
there is such negligence as will prevent
recovery for personal injuries received.
2. If a car be SO crowded that a rea-
sonably prudent man would conclude that
he could not get inside without unrea-
Sonable pushing and croWding his way
by main force, the question as to whether
or not he is guilty of contributory negli-
gence when injured because of riding
upon the platform is one for the jury,
under proper instructions.
8. The mere fact that a passenger is
injured while necessarily standing upon
the platform is not in itself a cause for
there must be some intervening act at
tributable to the company and causing the
injury in order that the passenger can
recover. If the accident is caused by
the act of the plaintiff himself, or by
that of another passenger, the act not be-
ing the natural consequence of the COM
pany's negligence, it is not liable.
4. 1t stands admitted that the plaintiff,
a passenger was notified and warned by
the conductor of the danger of standing
on the platform, and was ordered to go
inside the cars, and that he wholly dis
regarded the warning and order. Held,
that when he was told to go inside the
cars it was his duty to go or, at least to
Their, that, On the testimony, the jury was
not warranted in concluding that plaintiff
made proper effort to find standing room,
or that it could not be found inside the
cars.
Order reversed. Collins, J.