The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-01-23
A STRIKER HIT Him.
A Duluth Man Fails to Recover
Damages From the Street
Car Company.
In Its Decision the Supreme Court
Apparently Reverses Itself,
but Explains. -: .:

Apparently Reverses Itself,
but Explains. .: 3:
Ten decisions were handed down by the
supreme court this morning.
Common carriers are only required. 10
use ordinary care and diligence in the
protection of passengers, and are not
liable for damages from whatever cause
arising This point is settled in the ia
nous Fewings case, which has peen IN
court since 1899. Fred j. Fewinss' the
plaintiff boarded a Duluth street car at
the time Of the strike and was struck in
the head by a stone thrown through the
window. He sued the street railway COM
pany and secured a verdict, but a new
trial was granted. On the second trlal
Fewings got a verdict for SlO,oS5.35, out
this time the court goes further, and re-
verses the verdict, ordering Judgment for
the Defense The court explains any
seeming inconsistency in the two deci-
sions by saving that 1.-The questions on
| which we have disposed of the case at
| this time were not intended to be covered
by the former decision. Some expressions
in that opinion may be construed as an
| nouncing the law on certain phrases OF
| the case, but they were not so intended
But one question was there decided. and
any expressions therein, which may ne
| inconsistent with the conclusions now ar
rived at must be regarded as obiter. Some
| members of the court. when the case was
| here before, were in some doubt upon
the principal question now decided, but
those doubts have been overcome fully by
| the further argument and consideration
of the case, and we are all agreed upon
the conclusions now reached
| The syllabus says:
Fred J. Fewings, respondent VS.. Luther Men
| denhall, receiver of the Duluth Street Rail
| way company, appellant. go
| FlrSt-A carrier OF passengers Is charged "1tn
the highest degree Of care and foresight consist
ent with the orderly conduct of It's business, IN
respect to the protection Of Its passengers ,ir
sions, from the acts or omissions OF It's servants
| and from the acts of strangers who are under
ordinary care and prudence only to guard against
| the lawless acts Of third persons not under Its
Second-Defendant was engaged in operating
street car system, and his employees ha Alt IN
T. which Voence
the part Of the lawless element among the strik-
ers and their sympathizers. Defendant contin,
ued to operate his cars and plaintiff was injured
when passenger on one of them, by being
| struck upon the head by a stone thrown from
person in no way Under the Control or DIRECTION
| Of defendant. In this action to recover damages
for such 1ry It is held taft
operate his cars during the strike, and (2( that
the evidence is insufficient to justify finding
! respects the act resulting in plaintiffs injury.
Ihird-The rule Of ordinary care and pru-
son charged with its exercise to take unreason:
able or extremely doubtful precautions to guard
the wdu1 and iesy acts OF Str hn
Of the in which plaintiff was riding or
stretch heavy canvas eyer the windows outside
cry against him.
! Reversed. brown, J.
State Keeps DeIphlne Berry.
The state remains the ward of little
Delphine Berry, an inmate Of the state
public school at Owatonna, who has been
a football Of the courts for five years. The
supreme court finally disposes Of the case
by deciding that the board of control and
Il the superintendent Of the school are the
judges of whether child committed to
i the school should be released, and that
i their authority is superior to the rights
Of a guardian. either previously or subse-
quently appointed. Delphine Berry was
sent to the school from Hennepin county
May q, 1898, with the consent Of her
father, her mother being insane. Her
father later brought a habeas corpus &C.
ton on which the court commissioner OF
Steele county ordered her release. On ap-
peal the supreme court reversed that Or
der and ren1anded the child to the GUS
tody Of the school. Later Nora Armstrong
was appointed guardian of the child by
the probate court Of Waseca county, and
an injunction was brought by her to re-
. strain the authorities from resuming Gus
tody of Delphine. This was dismissed by
the district court, which is upheld on the
appeal. The law Is stated in the syllabus
> as follows:
Control OF the State Public School and o. A
Merrill respondents.
ted to their guardianship, under chapter .21o
tipy,ac 111r{r t,ofro
ity of the infants. unless sooner relinquished by
voluntary act of the officers and is superior t
the rights OF a guardian either previously o.
second-Whether an infant 50 committed t
ment and discretion Of the school officers, VIII
are clothed with power to act In that behalf b.
the terms Of the statute under which such com
mitments are made; with the exercise Of whicl
discretion the courts will not interfere
! Affirmed. Brown, ].
Injunction Stands.
Charles e. Fuller's temporary injunction
is sustained, restraining Joseph M Schut
from disposing of his patent pending
suit to enforce an. agreement to share il
the profits. The case was appealed from
Hennepin county. Fuller claims to hav'
advanced Schultz money to get a patent o.
a mixture of pulverized coffee and sugar
with an understanding that he SHOULD
have an eighth interest in the patent. III
claims that after the patent was granted
Schultz refused to carry out the agree
ment. The syllabus is as follows:
Charles E. PULLED. respondent, vs.. Joseph NJ
Schultz, appellant.
First-An order for temporary injunction
granted upon hearing of the parties and no
issued ex parte is appeaable.
second-Where an order for temporary in
interest in a patent until the final disposition
of the case, held, the facts disclosed here
| (a) That the complaint did not conclusivel,
show that the patent bad been issued in fraut
OF the federal statutes governing the subject.
! (b) That it did not appear that the contro
versy set forth in the pleadings was solely o.
| federal cognizance. .
l. Ic) That the court upon the denial in thu
answer Of the equities alleged In the complain
did not abuse its discretion In granting the re
straining order.
Order affirmed. Lovely y.
Check Not colectabIe.
A complicated controversy over $1,000
check is settled in favor of the State
Bank of Sleepy Eye, on which the checi
was drawn. 1t was signed by l.. T. Jen
sen of Sleepy Eye, and sent to Chicago
| certified by the bank as guarantee or his
part Of a partnership agreement, by which
he became a special partner in the firm Of
Whiteside, Farrell & Co. OF Chicago
Before the date for completing the part
| nership arrangements, Jensen died. Thi:
was on Oct. 9, and Dec. 1 the check wa:
| turned over by Farrell, who received 1t
to the other partners, who Endorsed 1t
and disposed Of it to the plaintiff In thi!