Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-09-11
! 1mportant Decisions
REMOVAL. or MurpRs.

VVOVVOVVOOOOVOy
REMOVAL or METERS.
Tho plaintiff, in his written appai1
cation tofthe defendant for q Supply
of gas In his dwelling, agreed that the
defendants agent should hive free ac-i
cess to the meter at all reasonable.
hours, and might remove the same1
and accordingly the defendant install-s
ed its meter In the cellar, ana Supplied
gas to the plaintiff. Several gas bills
due from the plaintiff being unpAidy
the defendants agent applied to the
plaintiffs wife, who was In charge Of
the house, for admission to the CELLAR
to remove the meter, but she refused
Afterwards, In the daytime, the agent!
forced the outer door OF the cellar, en-|
tered. and removed the meter, using not,
more force than was necessary, and
causing no disturbance whatever toI
any person. Plaintiff brought suit lori
damages. Held, that this was not 81
tort against the plaintiff, and plalntlfIl
could not Observation-Disclosures w. Es-i
sex Gas co. 81 All. 397 IN. ~
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff. having previously been eii-|
gagged az passenger brakeman.
which ala not require him to know thel
position OF low bridges. was sent Quit
an rear brakeman on q freight train
under rules requiring him to be on topi
OF his train when approaching or passs|
ing through station yards. In ende3v-J
oring to reach the top of his train
compliance with such rule, after day
as the train was approaching = IT.
ton yard, he raised his head above tn
train at point between the telltaleI
and low bridge OF which he had not1
been informed. by which he wasQ
struck and fatally injured. He broughtE
suit for damages. Held, that plafn-l
tin had not assumed the risk OF such
injury--Miller vs. b. & NJ. r. r. vi
All. 1872 IN. H.)
FRAUD.
Defendants general manager, Who'll
had been the adviser OF plaiptiMs hh4-l
band, and had recommended to him
the purchase OF certain variety OIL
the associations stock, sent for plain
tiff after her husbands death, ana rep-,E
resented to her that II she did not
exchange such stock for other stCclfgI
which was In fact security OF not
so high = value, she would sustain q
loss. The representations were made |
for the benefit Of the defendant assoc
citation alone. Plaintiff was not ct |
forded an opportunity to secure any
advice on tho subject ana war ignor-s
ant Of the situation. Held. that . del
cree against the association restoring
plaintiff to her former position wagIl
warranted. Tucker v. osbourn, O |
All. s21 (Md.)
FELLOW SERVANTS.
L Appellants were contractors 0ne1gsE
ed In the erection OF what ID known /
az the "Elk's Temple" MOSCOW. Tho
respondent was employed with one ~
to furnish mortar and brick 70 the
bricklayers. One B. was the manAgetssi
and In immediate charge Of the ooile
struction Of said building for tho ap-sE
peliants. After the brick work Oh shesg
northerly side Of the building wAesl
completed, II was necessary 20 erect = 4
scaffold across the west end Of the
building for the use Of the bricklayerss !
B. directed K. to erect such scanold,
and In doing SO It was necessary Tor
him to put In place two joists or CROSSE
pieces on which to lay the floor Of the
scaffold. From lot Of material fur.
nished for that purpose, he selee.fsl III
two pieces. and one OF the brick
sons nailed the ends thereof IN PITS
Thereafter B. and K. laid some bca
on said scaffold, and thereafter re
spondent assisted K. in completing the
erection thereof. b. directed K. to lat
the ends Of the floor across the joiSs:
which he neglected to do. Thereof Yes|
the respondent and K. placed d CEN
siderable quantity Of mortar and sbIicxI
on said scanold, and the section sup
ported by one Of said crosspieces fellss
the crosspiece having broken; and irisl
the fall the respondent was injured.
Held, that IL there was negligence OF
carelessness In placing q detective
crosspiece in said scaffold, It was the
negligence and carelessness Of a FELLOW
servant and the appellants are not H.
BILE therefor. Larsen v. Le Dotix, 81
Pac. 900 Qdaho.)