Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-05

e@AA3AA~~1~~~AAeAA@~@@A1@4
{Important Decisions{
3a~>00C0QQ@V@SQS~&&$e&e%><
Plaintiff was the owner of about Is
acres of land situated in the city OF
Houston between DePelchins street
and White Oak bayou. In 1893 this
propertv was laid out in lots and
blocks. with spaces left for streets In
March, 1900, plaintiff executed a deed
to the city of Houston, whereby, in
consideration of $1,000 she conveyed to
the city for street purposes a strip of
land thru her property 80 feet wide and
extending from DePelchin street to the
south bank Of White Oak bayou. The
purpose Of the city In acquiring this
property was to extend Houston aven-
ue north to White Oak bayou, and a.
cross the bayou by a bridge thereaf-
ter to be constructed. PLAINTIFF knew
of the purpose to extend the avenue
and construct the bridge, but not OF
the intention to lower the grade of the
street to the detriment Of her prop
plaintiff moved her houses from the
land thus conveyed over to the mar
gin of the proposed street. The CITY
then proceeded to build a bridge over
White Oak bayou at such a height as
rendered it necessary to excavate
Houston avenue thru plaintiffs prop
erty to such depth from the street
side, whereby the value of her prop
erty was lessened. Plaintiff brought
suit for damages against the city. The
city defended on the ground that her
deed was a bar to any action for DAM
ages, and that the city, under It's char-
ter powers, had the right to make the
Improvement without liability to ad-
jacent property owners. If the work
was done with reasonable care and
skill. PLAINTIFF had verdict. HELD,
that inasmuch as It did not appear that
plaintiff had any reason to appreheno
that the city would SO an the I'M
provement as to render 1t Impossible to
construct approaches to plaintln's
claim for damages was net barred pV
the deed, and further that the legislat-
ure has no power to confer on city
authority to damage private property
without due compensation to the own
err. Houston VS.. Bartels, So s.. w. 82S
(Texas).
LIQUOR DEALERS-NiINORS
Respondent is a liquor dealer ana
this action was brought by the state
against respondent and his bondsanen
for permitting minor to enter his
place of business contrary to the provi-
sions Of said bond. It appeared that
one e. K. minor. entered respon-
dents place of business upon his in
vitation, for the purpose OF repair
ing, or Of assisting to repair, a gas
oline lamp. and that no remained In
there a minute or two. Held, that tho
this entry was made for a harmless
purpose, 1t did not excure respondent
and the state was entitled to a judy
ment under the statute.
Douthit VS.. state, SO s. W. 353 (Tex-
as.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Plainti ffand defendant made ver-
bal exchange Of lands. after which
each occupied the land belonging to
tho other. Thereafter plaintiff convey
ed to his son the land occupied by de-
PENDANT. and an ejectment action by
the son was transferred to equity and
proceedings for an accounting COM
menced In which both the plaintiff and
the defendant claimed that the other
was indebted for rent timber cut, and
Improvements made, etc. On reference
the referee allowed plaintiff IS per
acre for clearing twenty acres Of land.
and only charged him $40 for the rent
Of the same land for seven or eight
years. Proof showed that IS per acre
was a fair price for clearing land by
leaving the large trees stardine- Held,
that the allowance to plai .iff for
clearing the land was unreasonable
when considered in connection with
the rent charged.
Cooper VS.. Cooper, SO s. W.. SH
CSy.)
DIVORCE-RESIDENCE
Plaintiff and defendant are husband
and wife and lived together as husband
and wife until June. 1900. when they
entered into articles Of separation to
live apart. After the separation ths
husband became suspicious OF his wife,
and hired detectives to discover and
bring to light, II It existed, evidence
Of her guilt. AS result of the report
the husband fled a bill for divorce. De-
PENDANT claimed among other things
that plaintiff had lost his residence in
Kentucky and therefore could not hle
q bill there. It appeared that plaintiff
was in the naval service Of the United
States and had been away from Ken
lucky for some time, but he owned
property there and paid taxes there,
and never claimed any legal residence
elsewhere. Held, that sailor In thu
active service of the United States does
not lose his actual or legal residence.
Radford vs. Radford, SO 8. w. tKy.)
LICENSES FOR TEAMS.
Appellant is In business In the city
Of Covington. He owns and uses IN
his business Of hauling two two-horse
wagons and one one horse wagon. His
business consists of hauling goods for
merchandise. The city Of Covington
has the following ordinances: That
the yearly amount which the owners
Of vehicles used or let for hire, ply
ing the streets Of Covington, shall pay
respectively for license therefor each
and every year, shall be as followss
Two-horse wagon used for hauling
boilers engines, safes, stone, lumber.
logs, iron, brick, sand. tobacco, SIS;
drawn by one horse, 49," Appellant fl
ed his petition claiming that the city
was Threatening to enforce this ordi-
FA