Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-16
tlmportant Decisions

u Ie'I1J1A1s
Respondent was cOFA icted OF lne
crime OF burglary All OF the outsloe
doors o the house were closed, but Two
window In one Of the rooms were par
lially No from the bottom, not leaVifi5
IN alepature large enough Tor man
10 enter, aud tho prisoner increi 81
one of the aperatarcs by raising lhe
vin'ov high enough to enable him u
Sct his body thru. Respondent con-
ended that this act was not break
ing within the meaning of the term
burglary as defined by the statutes OF
tennessee, which definition is as fol-
lows. "Isurglary is the breaking and
entering into a mansion house by night
with intent to commit a felony" Held,
that the raising of the window was Il
sufficient breaking.
Claiborne VS.. State, s3 S. w. 353
.Tenn)
TELEGRAMS-MIS
Plaintiff was DESTROYS of purchas sing:
a stock of goods owned by a furniture
company at Whitesboro. Plaintiff re-
sided at Bonham. He sent his agen:
there to examine the stock and as
certain the price, and the price de-
manded was IS cents on the dollar.
This price was submitted to plaintin
who delivered to defendant telegraph
company to be transmitted to plain
tiff's agent, a message stating that 6s'
cents was the best and last offer he
would make. Defendants clerk, thru
a mistake, made the telegram to read
Is cents and plaintiffs agent on the
strength Of such telegram, purchased
the goods at 20 cents on the dollar
Plaintiff brought this action to recover
damages for neglect in the transmits
sion of the telegram. Held, that he
was entitled to recover the difference
between the two prices, that 49, be-
tween the amount he authorized (65
cents) and the amount paid GO cents.'
on the dollar.
Western Union Tel. Co., VS.. Spivey,
SO S. w. 364 (Texas)
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.
Defendant was indebted to one S. p.
H., evidenced by promissory note.
II. assigned the note to plaintiff, and
she instituted this action on it and
sought to subject to the payment of IT.
small house and lot, worth $500 or
5000. After the debt was contracted the
property was purchased by Mrs. b..
defendants wife, and the deed was
taken to her. The contract price was
5000, and she paid 5000 of 1t, and her
husband paid 500 out OF his salary.
Defendant was in poor health and his
wife was obliged to nurse and care for
him. and it appeared that the 800
which he contributed towards purchas-
ing the house did not exceed the
amounts which he should have paid for
the support Of his family. Held, that
under the circumstances, the convey
ance was not fraudulent as to the hus-
bands creditors.
Eversole VS.. Bullock, S3 S. w. 556
(Ky)
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff, a brakeman, had undertake
en- to uncouple car and had given a
signal for slack, and short time af-
forwards the engineer again backed the
train on signal from another brake
man whereby plaintiff was injured. The
engineer knew that plaintiff went be-
tween the car because the rod used for
uncoupling had become bent and would
not work. Plaintiff brought action for
damages Held, that the evidence was
sufficient to support a verdict for the
plaintiff.
Cincinnati & T. p. r. Co. VS.. Cook,
SO S. w. $50 (Ky)
NFGLIGENCE-ST
Plaintiff, at the time of the injury
complained of, was in the employ of
his brother, in the capacity of barten-
der, The defendant was bother OF
champagne cider and had been for
twenty years and more. The liquid
was charged with carbonic acid gas.
The defendant sold quantity OF
champagne cider to the plaintiffs en-
ployer, and the cider when delivered
was put in the ice box. On the 2Sth
day of February, 1902, plaintiff took
a bottle of said cider out of the ice
box, and claims that while holding it
in his hand, and before any force was
applied to it, the bottle exploded, and
was blown into a large number OF
fragments, and piece of the glass
from the bottle struck the plaintiff in
his eye and destroyed it. The testi-
mony showed that this bottle was
charged in the ordinary way by the
bother, and sent out in the usual
course of trade, and that he had no
knowledge that it was improperly
charged. Held, that defendant could
not be held liable to a third person,
who stood in no privity Of contract to
him, because a bottle burst causing in
iuries, in the absence of proof OF
knowledge that defendant knew of the
defect, and further that the fact that
a bottle explores does not create an
Inference of negligence sufficient to fix
liability on the seller.
o'Niell VS.. James, II D. N. L. $40
(Mich.)
Spoiled Her Beauty.