Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-19
EImportant Decisions

lMpO1 tdlls
e>>~SneeeQ@S@S~s~ S%$SS%S~e
RAILROADS CROSSING TRACK.
Defendant maintained tracks IN an
alley between packing house buildings,
with knowledge that the employees Oh
the packing house uniformly crossed
the tracks between the buildings. De-
ceased and two other packing mousse
employees started to cross the tracks,
and stopped and looked north for APP
preaching trains, and, tho their view
was somewhat INSTRUCTED, they could
see moving cars at least 500 feet away.
No cars were seen by any OF the three
whereupon they walked south on
platform about thirty-five feet when
they started to cross without again
looking before going on the track. De
ceased's companions got across but de-
ceased was struck and killed by train
from the north. Held, that deceased
was not guilty of contributory negh-
gence as matter of law.
Booth VS.. Terminal Ry., 1Ol N. W.,
LAT Uowa).
NUISANCES-CRBA REFUSE.
In 1898, plaintiff, with others, orr
ganized and procured to be incorporat-
ed. the defendant company, the bust
ness Of which is the manufacture OF
butter and this it does from milk sup
piled by it's stockholders, farmers re-
siding in the vicinity. The creamery
buildings were located on the bank OF
a small waterway, a branch OF the
Middle river. In wet seasons a small
stream of water stands in pools along
the way, or dries up entirely. Plain
tiff's farm is below the location OF the
creamery, his farm buildings being Sit
uated about forty rods from the cream
cry building. The waterway passes
along to the rear Of his barns and out
houses. AS at first constructed, the
refuse Of the creamery, consisting OF
the washing of the churns, watts, can,
ETC., was dumped Immediately into the
waterway, which refuse polluted the
water and gave off noxious gases af-
fecting the use and enjoyment OF plain
tiff's property. Held, that the deposit
of such refuse as abov estated amount
ed to q nuisance.
Perry vs. Creamery Co., 101 N. w.
$50 Uowa).
FIRE INSURANCE.
Plaintiffs application for insurance,
warranted the building was occupied
as a private dwelling, and stated that
he was the occupant. Subsequently 1t
was occupied by a tenant, until the
loss. save that he was temporarily alb
sent for about week Immediately pre-
ceding the fire, during which time a
neighbor had the key, and entered the
house almost daily to water plants.
Held, that IL there was change in oc-
cupancy the Jury were justified in find
ing that it did not increase the hazard
and plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Nicholas VS. Insurance Co., 101 N. w.
116 (Minn.)
PARENTS LIABILITY.
Plaintiff claimed that defendants
son came to plaintiffs boarding house
and requested board, and said that his
father would pay for it as he was
learning the drug business and did not
earn much money. Plaintiff, relying
upon these representations, boarded de-
PENDANTS son, and at one time when
he was sick, took care Of him and
nursed him about two weeks. Plaintiff
further claimed that defendant after
wards came to her place and admitted
that he had told his son to come to her
city and select boarding place, and
that he would pay his board until he
was 21 years old. Defendant denied
that he had ever agreed to pay his sons
board. and that he authorized him to
procure board from plaintiff. Held,
that a farther is not ordinarily liable
for board furnished to minor son I'M
less he agreed to pay the same.
McCrady VS.. Pratt, II D. L. N. 529
(Mich.)
INSURANCE = OWNERSHIP.
Defendant is an insurance company
and issued a policy of fire insurance or
all of the household furniture in the
house occupied by plaintiff. Part OF
this property was owned by the plain
tiff and part of it was held under con-
ditional ownership, 1t having been pur-
chased on the installment plan. The
policy contained clause that the pol
icy shall be void If the interest Of the
insured be other than unconditional
and sole ownership, unless other own.
ership be assented to in writing. Tht
property was destroyed and plaintiff
brought suit. In the lower court {
verdict was directed in her favor 70
the value Of the property which sh,
owned absolutely. Held, that the polio.
was void and that the plaintiff wa
not entitled to recover either for tn
priperty she owned herself or the prop
erty purchased by her under the in
stallment plan.
Dow VS.. National Insurance Com
pany, So Att 999 (R. ~
| CRIMINAL LAW,
The defendant, colored man, abou
IS years Of age, was indicted for pre-
tending to exercise the art Of dealing
with spirits. The charge made agains
him was that he had pretended to diff
ferent persons that they were unde
the influenced some evil spirit an
that he alone had power to remov
| such spirits. The laws of Delawar
provide that if any person shall pre-
g