The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-06-05
A DODGE OF SOLONS
Supreme Court Knocks Out Special
Legislation Disguised as a
General Law. q.
As a Result, Norman County's Court.
house Bonds Are
Held Up.

last legislature was wiped out by a de-
cesion of the supreme court, filed this
morning. 1t sustains the action of John
M. Hetland. a taxpayer of Norman county,
to restrain the county commissioners from
issuing $4,000 in bonds for the erection
OF courthouse. They sought to do this
under chapter 1873 of the laws Of 1903,
which the court says is clearly uncon-
sttutional. 1t was so drawn as to apply
TO Norman county under three CLASH
ilcatlons. It applied to counties with less
IMAM 100000 inhabitants, which had let
contracts for building a courthouse, and
mad spent $1,000 for that purpose. The
opinion IS sarcastic on the question Of
legislative ingenuity. The syllabus says:
John NJ Hetland appellant, VS.. Board Of Coun.
ty Commissioners of Norman County ct al,
!, Chapter 1888, General Laws 1908, an act au
.aaolialng the board of c ounty commissioners
OF d certain ain counties to issue the bonds Of the
county Tor the construction of courthouse held
special legislation and unconstitutional anu void
hae osra n top therein adopted by which
pended at for hts
Damage Case Lost.
Ulrik Nordquist again loses in his dam
age suit against the Great Northern.
brought in Hennepin county. The sylla-
bus: II
Ulrik Nordquist, appellant, vs.. Great Northern
EnIail"ay company, respondent.
Tristan employee is bound to obey all of the
reasonable rules Of his employer with reference
s to the CONDUCT Of his business psobedienee Of
Jury jury OF the employe. concusively charges him
Y" WIN n negligence, which will bar any recovery
Second-The plaintiff in this. personal injury
acuon, Is chargeable matter of law with
the rules of the defendant as to taking Of
afelgne trains thru one of it's tunnels. Order
a1 1h. Start. c. j.
Hennepin County.
Luther Jaeger and n: Carlton Torelle, copartners
Glover, appellant.
Under contract between firm of real estate
sale upon stipulated commissions: the evidence
reasonably tended to show that the brokers' were
Completed after the expiration of the hoe
named IN the agency contract; Held, that the
p airnnd Is sustained by the evidence; Order
HennepIn County.
"f Tes p: G: BerIyhill respondent, John W.
First-Under section GLIB general statutes 1894
JURISDICTION ts Of the court does not depend upon
the complaint that the defendant is absent from
ne county IN order to make substantial service
the fact OF such absence. and if the summons
was duly issued and served 1t was not error to
of the trial to show the fact Of such absence.
SHOULD not ps that the premises
sent Of the lesser expressed liz writing on the
b back d thereof Held the lease showing absence
of the fact that no consent was given.
Ihlrds q oral plea Of not guilty, u.s. under
the purpose Of putting in issue merely the aiiega
ions OF the complaint but if it is desired to
OF up anedane ets then y Of
~ I!o, Wfltten answer lis in other civil actions
a nsd to try tho to s5rke out the Plea q
reversed and new trial granted. Lewis. j.
Cottonwood County,
Horace Lemon and A. R. Brooke, partners as
lemon d Brooks respondents, VS.. Nils T. De
Fir FIST aeRfsli that the comn,,,rt nare,n
non non brought to recover a commission said to
h nave neen earned by plaintiffs real estate
a purchaser for certain land stated a cause
seeond-The contention of defendants conn.
sci that there was material variance be-
tween the contents of letter introduced in eyi.
n aentts to establish the contract between the
part1es, and the agreement relied on and SET
forth In the complaint, considered and disposed
Third-Held, that there was testimony suffi-
GENT to sustain finding of the Jury that I'll the
letter above mentioned, not written by defend.
aFfhel bs Mas i written b. ns
a finding that before making the sale Of the
land land the defendant was advised and we'll knew
the the plaintiffs and had been BY them to
the trlal court was, upon the testimony Justified
IN IN refusing to submit to the jury the ques-
ZION as to whether not plaintiffs procured
such purchaser. Order affirmed. Collins, J.
Ramsey County.
William B. Hunt. father of Harriet Hunt.
MS minor daughter respondent, VS.. st. Paul
Elty galway Company, appellant and VIII
Raw 81 aant St. Paul CITY
'F1rst--Held, that the evidence in q nersonal
1n}ury case as to the manner in which the &C
able and improbable as to require the court be-
low, to grant new trial upon hearing an alter |
native motion made by defendants counsel after
a verdict In plaintiffs favor. -. |
. Second-The Jurors were justified in finding |
from the evidence, that both the hearing and !
eyesight OF child, ten years of age, were per.
manently injured and impaired by the accident |
and al I'll that other injuries were received BY her
favor in the sum Of $4,000 was not excessive
unoer such circumstances. Orders affirmed |
Collins J.
st. Louis County.
Marie Dewey, respondent, vs.. NJ L. Kimbal ct
a., oefendants National Bond and Security |
company, appellant. Two cases.