Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-03-13
e@DS0@1@@@@&91@@@9@0@9@%"
: Important Decisions {
pA11poans TR'EspAssER

Plaintiff lived north of the station
Boaz on defendants road, and was
walking along the railroad, going south
to his work, which was beyond the sta
ton AS he went along, a train pass
ed him, also going south which pulled
in on the side track at the station, and
when he reached the side track he
walked down the main track. He
heard a second train coming south
ward down the railroad, and suppos-
ing that it would come in on the
main track, crossed over to the side
track, and, without looking back, pro-
ceeded to walk OH down the side track
in the direction of the first train,
which had stopped on the side track
some distance south of him. While
he was thus walking along the size
track, the second train, when it reach
ed the switch, also took the side track,
pulling in behind the first, to leave the
main track clear for a passenger train,
and in so doing ran upon him. and
knocked him off the track. while he
had his back to it, and was under the
impression that this train was on the
main track. He sued to recover for
his injuries. Held, that there can be
no recovery for injuries to one run in
to by train while walking on the
track, in the absence of evidence that
the operatives Of the train was the
trespasser and failed to use ordinary
care thereafter. Manning VS.. Illinois
Central Railroad Company, "a, S. w,
SIS (Ky0.
RAILROADS-CROS
,,;I; a RI.
on narrow street, stopped, looked and
listened when within IS or 20 feet of a
railroad crossing with which he was
familiar. At this place he could see
east $50 or 300 feet in the direction
from which a train was approaching.
The view of the tracks to the east ex-
tended as he approached them, and at
a distance of feet from them he
could have seen east for more than
1000 feet. He drove on without looking
again to the east until his horse was
on the first track, when he saw train
100 feet from him, running at the rate
of IL or Is miles per hour. About 200
feet west of this; crossing there was a
crossing at which there were safety
gates, the tops IF which could be seen
over the houses on the west side of the
street. These g;utes We're up when the
plaintiff stopped. When he started to
cross the tracks he looked at them,
and continued 10 look ait them as he
proceeded; relying on the action of the
watchman at that crossing to notify
him of danger. Plaintiff was struck by
train and brought suit for damages.
Held, that he was guilty of contribu
tory negligence; that it was his duty
to continue looking as he approached
the tracks, and that If he relied on the
fact that the safety gates at the other
crossing were up, he did so at his own
risk, and cannot recover. Harvey VS..
Erie R. Co., SO Att. 691 (Pa.)
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
Defendant was induced to purchase
a house and lot by fraudulent repre-
sensations of the vendor as to the con-
dition of the inside of the house, and as
to other matters concerning the prop
erty, and after she had taken deed
and paid the purchase price, and exam
ined the house, she demanded posses
sion Of the tenant. She had not then
been informed of her legal rights, or OF
the untruth of other representation
Out d lew udyS laleT she deiHdHdSu res
cission and never took possession. Held
that she was not barred on the ground
that she had made an election. Annis
VS.. Ferguson, "a S. w. 553 (Ky)
DIVORCE-RESIDEN
Complainant filed bill for divorce
against the defendant. The only tes-
timony in the case as to the length OF
residence in the state, of complainant
was that of complainant herself. Held
that to authorize decree of divorce
compliments testimony as to resi-
dence in the state, and desertion by de-
PENDANT, must be corroborated. Sa-
bin VS.. Sabin, 50 Att. 627 IN. -