The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-01-17
COURT SEES NO JOKE
IN SETTING FIRE
TO A MAN
Decision of Lower Court
Awarding Thomas Curran
500 Damages for a Trick
: Played on Him in a sa-
loon, Is Affirmed Swim
dlers Must Go to Peni-
tertiary.

The supreme court holds, Chief Jus
tice Start writing the opinion, it's no
joke to pour alcohol on a mans feet
and set fire to the fluid while he hap
pens to be asleep in saloon.
This trick was played on Thomas
Curran, at East Grand Forks, in the
saloon of Skaren & Olson.
Curran, after spending all his money
| in the saloon, visited the resort on the
night of Feb. 10, 1902. While he was
asleep in chair, alcohol was poured
over his feet and set on fire This ex-
tremely funny act was performed by a
cook In the restaurant located in the
rear of the saloon, the barkeeper giving
the cook the alcohol to work the trick.
The saloonkeepers were not present
when Curran was playing the part of
human torch, but the supreme court
hoids that the proprietors/were respon-
sole for the acts of the barkeeper. The
fact that Curran had laughed while
two other patrons of the place had been
given the same kind of treatment ear
her IN the evening and had then gone
TO sleep, the court holds is hardly what
could be called contributory negli-
gence
The decision Of the lower court.
awarding Curran 500 damages against
Skaren & Olson is affirmed.
William Fay and r. c. Evans who
were caught by Chief O'Connor while
sWlndling August Northrop out of $50.
IN October, 1901, will have to serve out
their sentences of four and five wears
respectively.
Not an Oratorical Contest.
In the Evans case one of the points
urged for the granting of a new trial
was that the lower court erred in
charging the jury that the trial was
not an oratorical contest between the
learned counsel, and the jury should
not determine which one made the
most eloquent speech or emitted the
largest volume of sound The SUI
preme court held that this portion of
the charge was not erroneous
In the Fay case the point was made
that the lower court erred in not grant
ing continuance when asked for by
the attorneys for the defendant The
supreme court holds that "a continu-
ance should not be granted upon YER
bal statements of counsel; that it is
necessary, or upon the mere suspicion
that absent witnesses may be needed
at the trial, and that the lower court
very properly denied motion for a
new trial based on the statement that
counsel was surprised by the testi-
mony of one of the witnesses for the
state.
Justice Collins wrote both. decisions.
The supreme court yesterday handed
doWn fourteen decisions, ten of which
affirm and four reverse the orders of
judgment of the lower courts
City of Owatonna, appellant. VS.. Carl T
II. Rosebrock ct al, respondents
SyllabuS-A testator beQue athed to GER
tam I'd persons fund of 5000, the income
OF which was to be USED in aiding and
maintaining a kindergarten in the CITY
OF OWatonna, provided, that whenever the
city should be authorized to receive and
admlnlster such trust the same should
be transferred to it. The estate was ad-
m1n1Stered and the fund came into the
possession of the individual trustees who
dalIed 70 devote it to the trust purposes.
Subdivision six chapter 284, General Stat
uteS, was then amended by adding the
maintaining of kindergartens, to the list
OF objects for which municipalities might
administer trusts Thereupon the CITY
council of OWatonna accepted the trust
and made demand for the money in the
hands of the individual trustees, which be-
ing refused, this action was brought to
compel an accounting and payment of
the fund on hand. Held: l. The city
by the amendment of subdivision six
chapter 4284, General Statutes 1894 it
was authorized to accept and administer
such trusts. 2. The beneficiary is not
so indefinite and uncertain that the trust
could not be administered and the statute
against .perpetuities has no application
Trusts for such purposes are expressly
authorized by the statute A. The an
pellant is entitled to the relief prayed for
IN the complaint Notwithstanding the fact
that the trial court assumed that the ac-
ton was founded upon the theory that the
city was the beneficiary. Judgment re-
versed. Lewis +
John Hanson ct al, respondents, VS.. Albert
e. Rice ct al. defendants; Albert E.
Rice ct al, appellants
Order reversed and new trial granted
Brown, j.
Roger S. Lerch. respondent, VS. City of
Duluth, appellant.
Order reversed. Lovely, J.
State Of Minnesota, respondent, VS. Ior-
enz Bjornaas. appellant
Judgment reversed and q new trial
granted. Lovely, J.
Gilbert o: Dickerman. respondent, VS..
City of Duluth, appellant.
Order affirmed. Collins. 7.
Ellen M futile. respondent. vs.. Mary r
Boshart ct al, defendants; Mary e
BoShart. appellant.
II. B. Fryberger. respondent, VS.. Knute
Berven ct al, defendants; John Brown.
as administrator, ETC., ct al, appel
lants.
Judgment affirmed Start, G. ].
James Monahan. respondent VS.. Chicago
Milwaukee & st. Paul Railway COmnanv
ct al, appellants.
Judgment affirmed Lovely. /
A. H. Osborne. as receiver of G. P. Kirk
ham: insolvent. respondent, VS.. Jacob D.
Fender, appellant.
Order affirmed Lewis. T.
Charles J. Berryhill. as administrator of
the estate of William G. Whitacre and
in his own right. appellant vs. Alfred
GaSquoine. as administrator with the
VIII annexed. of the estate of Samuel D.
Lord, respondent.
Judgment affirmed. Lewis T.
The City of st. Cloud. respondent. We
The Water. Light and Power Co. ct al
defendants; The Industrial Trust Co
ct al, appellants.
Order affirmed Lewis. ].
New interpretations
The following articles of incorporation
terday: yes
Great Northern Power Conpanv of T,r-
luth. General nature of business ~
pfoTement Of lakes bays and s+rea,,,s =,
M}EneSnta In aid Of navigation ana 9,r