Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-09-09
Important Decisions3
Se>>e>>>o>e~>>>ss>>>>>>>>S
SIDEWALKS.

,rhta Wna IN, action for injuries 10
plaintiff by falling into defectiVely
constructed coal hole In u sidewalk.
Defendant requested tho court 10
charge the Jury that there was no evil
dence of actual knowledge on the part
OF the city of such alleged defective
construction, "und. though the jury
might believe that the hole, cover ana
rim were effectively constructed. YET
if such construction could not nave
been discovered by II person exercising
ordinary care and prudence walking
over the sidewalk, then defendant was
not liable" The court modified the
instruction by striking out the words
quoted Held. proper. the city being
bound TO look for defects, though
plaintiff was not bound to discover lat
emf defects IN the walk Drake v.
Kansas city, SIS s. w. $50 (Mo)
FRAUD SUFtNC1IENCY.
Plaintiff sued on the ground that he
had been defrauded by defendant IN
the sale Of n farm and 1t appeared that
plaintiff and defendant had been part
ners In the ownership of the same. ana
that defendant had taken u third per-
son over tho farm rs prospective
buyer. Plaintiff testified that defend
mt advised him to sell and defendant
testified that plaintiff said he would
sell his one half interest for $1,000. Do
PENDANT thereafter concluded u trade
with the third person, and all three
persons met and executed deeds con-
yeyjng the farm to the third person,
and In the transaction the profit MADE
by the defendant amounted to over $b.-
900. Held, that. owing to the part
nership relation between the partleS,
and the continuity OF the transactions
plaintiff was entitled to one-half the
entire profits. Burgess VI. De,erilns,
IS S. w. I'll (Mo.l
RAILROADS, NOISE, ETC.
Plaintiff Is the owner Of three or four
'lots. upon two of which she had built
n two-story residence building. Tho
defendant had constructed freight
depot and five switch tracks at q point
about 100 feet west Of plaintiffs prop
erty. and plaintiff claimed that the
dust. escaping steam, etc, had dam
aged her property and also claimed
damage by reason OF the noise. bump
Ing Of cars etc. by which she was an
moved during the daytime and kept
awake at night. No negligence was
shown on the part of the company IN
the operation Of It's trains, or IN the
use Of It's property. Held, that not
withdrawing this fact. plaintih was
entitled to recover damages for per-
soma, ANNOYANCE and Inconvenience
a,.frered by her on account OF noise.
snoko. etc. ST Louis etc, II. II. Vs.
shaw. IS s. w. s16 (rexaso
rsAI1.wAYs-co LLIsloNs.
Plaintiff contracted with a livery
stable keeper for q carriage to convey
him to a certain place, and when the
carriage and driver called. he told the
driver where he was going. without
further directions. The carriage was
closed one and the first Know
ledge the plaintiff had OF any
danger was when he was look
ing out of the window OF the carriage,
he saw car rapidly bearing down up
on him The car and carriage COLI
ded and plaintiff was injured. The
defendant claimed that the driver was
guilty OF negligence which resulted IN
the accident Plaintiff knew nothing
about the driver, or his ability. etc.
Held, that the drivers negligence
could not be imputed to plaintiff, and
plaintiff could recover.--Sluder vs.. st.
Louis Transit Company, SS s. w. 64S,
(Mo.)