New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1904-05-04
DECISION IS AGAINST CITY
Judge Weber Sustained by State
Supreme Court.
Findings ia Gasink Personal In
jury Case Approved.
City Must Pay Damages Awarded
by the Jury.

Damages in the sum of $1,000 must |
be paid by the City of New Ulm to
Mrs. Louisa Gasink. On Friday a |
decision was handed down by the
justices of the state supreme court and
it approves the findings of Judge B.
f. Weber in the celebrated personal
injury case. With the expenses of the
appeal and those incurred at various
times while the litigation was in pro-
gress the total cost to the municipality
will be in the neighborhood of 1000.
! The syllabis of Fridays decision is
/ very brief, and is as follows:
Louisa Gasink, respondent, VS.. the
City of New Ulm, appellant.
/ Evidence considered and held suf-
| icient to sustain a verdict in favor OF
plaintiff.
Alleged errors in the reception of
testimony examined and held not
pre- judicial.
! Order affirmed.
No surprise is occasioned by the
outcome of the case, as those familiar
with it's merits have throughout pre-
/ dicted what it's result would be. It
will be remembered that Mrs. Louisa
Gasink fell upon sidewalk on Center
street which she claimed was defective
and in VIGOROUSLY bad condition.
She sustained injuries of a very grave
nature but after she had retained
counsel she made an offer to the city
to settle in full for the sum of $500.
These overtures were Indignantly
rejected, presumably by Jos. A. Eek
stein, then city attorney, and there
upon Mrs. Gasink's lawyers, Hoidale
& Somsen, brought suit for $4,000
damages. Mrs. Amalia Scherer~ was
named jointly with the city as a de-
| PENDANT but was able to show her
immunity from responsibility. At the
trial in the district court last Decem Der
the plaintiff succeeded in proving her
case to the satisfaction of a jury and
they awarded her 81, 900 damages. All
but one of the jurymen were in favor
2 man holding out for nearly twenty
four hours is due the fact that the
award was not higher.
: 1t was at this stage Of the proceed
' ings that the city attorney would seem
| to have made serious error. In the
face of the decisive thrashing he had
received before Judge Weber he per.
D. sisted in mourning greater expense
, by carrying the case to the supreme
0 court. An appeal was taken, the sun
~ of $780, in round numbers, paid to {
G printer for a paper book and a brief
e an expensive transcript was prepared
q and the expenditures must have reach
: ed 81, 900. They were for naught, a:
the city is now ordered to pay tn
= ST. 600 awarded by the jury in tn
., lower court.
d. In a way the decision is beneficial
q to the city, for had the case been sen
!. back the plaintiff doubtless woul
+ have received a bigger verdict at tn
2 second trail. This naturally suggest
= the question as to what motive tn
i city attorney had in appealing tn
. case at all. Had he been successfu
& in securing a new trial the city's e1
Z pense would not have been reduce
e one particle, for the financial circun
g stances of.the plaintiff we're such thu
d she could not have paid the costs an
j. they would have fallen upon the cit.
& This fact must have been patent to tt
5. attorney and how he could reason tn;
z paying for two trials and an appe;
g was cheaper than liquidating to tt
d tune of 81, 900 does not readily appea
d It might even be remarked that Il
& logical policy would have been
+ accept the original tender of $500.
%