The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-06-20
SUPREME COURT
REYERSES ELLIOTT
AND UPhO[DS OTIS
Opposite Decisions in Very
Similar Personal Injury Cases
i'm Which therStreet Railway
Company Has Been Defend
dnt-Other Decisions.

dHt-Other decisions.
Contrary to an almost invariable line
or action, the supreme court divided
yesterday in deciding a personal injury
suit. In actions of this character a
dissenting opinion has been of very
rare occurrence in all the history of
the court, 1t having become well es-
tabllshed custom for the minority
even though firmly convinced in it's
own belief, to defer to the judgment of
the majority, so far as the record may
be concerned. It is therefore the more
remarkable and noteworthy that in the
decision in the case of Christina Peter
son against the Minneapolis City Rail-
way company. handed down yesterday.
Justice Collins should file dissenting
opinion IN very vigorous terms. The
opinion is a reversal of an order of
Nudge Elliott, of the district court, in
Minneapolis, directing Judgment, not
outstanding verdict, and it's effect
will be that Mrs. Peterson will receive
$4,000 damages. s'
Mrs. Peterson, who is past seventy
years of age, was struck by a street
car while crossing Riverside avenue,
between Fifth street and Twentieth
jured. In the district court she Sc
cured a verdict of. $4,000. which Judge
Elliott set aside, ordering Judgment
for the defendant. The supreme court
reverses the trial court and sustains
the verdict Of the jury
In the opinion in chief the court ex-
onerates the woman from contributory
negligence on the ground of distract
ing circumstapces; it having been
shown that atAthe time the car struck
her another car was coming from the
opposite direction and a bicycle rider
was racing with this car She was
Watching the race and did not see the
car which struck her OF. hear the gong.
The court holds that in running his
car at eight miles an hour the motor
man Of the car which struck the wom-
an was going too fast, and saws that
the question Of negligence was one for
the jury to decide.
In his dissenting opinion Justice Col
Inns says that the majority opinion has
In effect discarded the we'll settled
doctrine Of the court in regard to con-
tr1butory negligence, and in so doing
has taken a dangerous departure from
It's established rules Of evidence He
holds eight miles an hour not to be
an excessive rate of speed for a street
car. S -stz
The action Of the court in the Pc
nently into notice by reason of the
contemporaneous decision in the st.
Paul case of Amelia M. Baly, as adj
min1stratrix, against the st. Paul City
Railway company, in which the oppo-
site. position is taken. These cases are
analogous, and in most essential fea-
lures identicai..
The latter suit arises out of the ac-
cfdent in front Of the old postoffice. on
July 81, 1901, in which Constant M.
Baly, aged sixty years, was killed by a
Saltwater ear. ftThe Administrative OF
the deceased brough suit against the
company for $4,000. Judge Otis held
Mr. Baly to have been guilty of con-
tr1butory negligence, and in this case
the supreme. court upholds that iudg-
ment. e~ t5T ~te
IEe court says in its opinion. which
is WrlttenJcby Justice Lovefy that al
though the car was undoubtedly run
ming too fast, the deceased showed
lack Of ordinary care. The court COM
menting on this point, says the foot
travellers are constantly crossing the
street car tracks or walking toward
them, and motormen cannot presume
that they will run into danger. but
may reasonably presume that the trav-
eler will stop before stepping on the
track, when the natural result of such
act would be death Or injury Other
cases decided yesterday are as fol-
lows:
state Of Minnesota respondent, VS.. Al
bert Dahlstrom. appellant.
Ofder reversed; - 40 Brown, J.
Patrick Barkey, appellant, VS.. Erland
Johnson. respondent.
Order affirmed. Brown. r
D. e. Ryan, doing business as d. E. RYAN
Co. respondent, VS.. Great Northern
RRa5lWay Company, appellant.
order reversed and new trial granted.
w. s.. Dwinnell and John C. Sweet. as
receivers of the MINNEAPOLIS Fire and
Marine Mutual Insurance Company. an
pellants, VS.. Fred Felt respondent
Order reversed, Lewis. T.
State Of Minnesota, respondent. VS..
Frederick W.. Pratt, appellant.
Judgment affirmed. Collins. J,
Annie p, Simonton, appellant, respondent,
VS.. The connecticut Mutual Life In
surance Co, defendants; The Connec-
ticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. re-
spondent, appellant.
Judgment modified. Start
John W. Beede, doing business as John
w. Beede &c Co, respondent, vs. Wis
CoIsIn Sentfai halfway Co., appellant.
Order affirmed. Start G. n
State Of Minnesota. respondent. VS.. VIII
IoAd66s dPPO11duI.
order affirmed Collins, j.
Theodore Henninger. appellant, VS.. Peter
Burch, respondent.
Order reversed and new trial granted
Lewis, J.
Henry KIugherz. respondent, VS.. Chicago.
Milwaukee & St., Paul Railway Com
pany, appellant.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Lewis, j.
The Geiser Manufacturing COMPANY an
pellant, VS.. Henry. Yost and Louis Yost,
respondents.
Order affirmed. Lewis r
First National Bank of Richmond. In
diana, respondent, VS.. Gertrude Schmitz
administrative of the estate of Peter
SchmitZ, appellant
Order affirmed. Brown J.
CONFESSES HE HIT
THE WRONG NEIGHBOR
II 50
w. {. Sturtevant, In Avenging Insult to
His Wife, Classics Innocent Man.
90