Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-02-21
) lmportant Decisions$
OWNERS-FENCES

ADJOINING NERS--FENC ES.
Plaintiff and defendant owned ad-
joining farms, which were separated
by Il fence constructed of posts and
three strands of wire stretched and
fastened with staples to such posts.
Defendant had permitted his portion
of this fence to become broken down
and in need of repair. Plaintiff turn
ed into his Enclosure 100 head OF cat
tie to Craze on the grass thereon
growing, and while there they broke
thru that part of the division fence
which defendant was bound to MAIN
tain, and entered his Enclosure. dam
aging his crop of corn. The defendant
drove all of them out. except three
head, which he detained for the dam
age done to his growing crop of corn,
and afterwards sold the cattle. Plain
tiff brought action for the cattle. Held,
that defendant was not entitled to de-
and that plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover the value of same. Cotton vs.
Huston. 81 S. W.. 90 (Mo.).
CARRIERS.
Plaintiff, passenger on defendants
railroad. arrived at his destination on
a special train on dark night, and,
following other passengers who struck
matches to aid them in seeing the way
to the street he passed along the
platform, which was unlighted, and
unguarded by a railing, and fell Off
the side thereof, with companion ana
was hurt. Plaintiff brought this action
for damages. Held, that defendant
was liable. Gerhart VS.. Wabash Rail-
road Company, 81, S. W.. 100 (Mo.).
CARRIERS.
While PLAINTIFFS son was a passen-
ger on one of the electric cars OF the
defendant company, broken wire fell
just before day, striking the dashboard
of the platform of the car, The lights
went out upon the falling of the wire
and this was Immediately followed by
a flash and an explosion, similar to
the explosion of a firecracker, but
louder Neither the car nor any of the
passengers were injured, nor was any
one frightened other than the plain
tiff's son. who, standing near the open
door at the rear of the car, under
first impulse, ran to the back platform
and jumped from the car drumming at
a high speed to the ground, striking
his skull and fracturing 1t, from which
injury death ensued. Plaintiff claim
ed that the accident was the cause of
his sons death, and that he was not
guilty of contributory negligence. Held,
that the finding of the jury that plain
tiff's son had acted unreasonably I'M
der the circumstances, and not as
reasonably prudent man would under
like conditions, was sustained by the
facts. Chretien vs.. New Orleans Rail-
way Company, 81 Sc, TIC Na.).
INSULT TO PASSENGERS.
Plaintiff, a commercial traveller, re-
paired to the depot of defendant COM
pany at Vicksburg. for the purpose OF
taking passage on it's train to Nat
chez. He procured ticket, and hand
ing his baggage and overcoat to a boy
proceeded toward the train The train
consisted, in addition to it's locomo-
tive and tender, of two combination
coaches; the front coach being used
one-half for baggage, the other halt
as smoker; the rear coach was used,
one compartment for colored passeng-
ers, and the other compartment for
white passengers. The train was head
ed south, the front end of the rear
coach was intended for colored pas
sengers, and the rear end for whites.
When the boy carrying plaintiffs bag
gage reached the passenger coach ne
attempted to get aboard at the front
end, where the colored porter was
standing engaged in conversation with
another person, also an employe of the
company. The porter roughly prevent
ed the boy from getting on the train,
and plaintiff, who was some twelve
feet behind, could not hear what was
said, but supposed that the boy was
refused admission because he had no
ticket. When the plaintiff arrived al
the train the porter refused him adj
mission, saying that he could not get
on there and although plaintiff showed
him his ticket, the porter persistently
refused to allow him to enter, but did
not assign any reason for his refusal.
Plaintiff was not aware that this was
the compartment for colored passen-
gers only, and after considerable talk
with the porter, who acted in surly
manner, and then walked away, plain
tiff was admitted to the train. He
then brought action for damages.
Held that plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover and that a verdict of $1,000 was
not excessive as exemplary damages.
Yazoo VS.. M. V. r. Co. 81 So. (Miss)