Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-08-16
{Important Decisions ;
CONTRACTS FRAUDS.

plaintiff brought action to recover AT
the rate of $1.50 per day for the term
actually employed. Held, that plaintiff
could not recover in the absence of
showing that the services We're worth
$3.50 per day, and further, that the
contract was void under the statute of
frauds, being for term longer than
one year and not being in writing.
Fehlstedt vs.. l.. S. & M. S. IL DIN
152 (Mich).
RAILROADS. MILEAGE.
Plaintiff was an employe of Il manu-
featuring concern and the yard III
which he worked was twice each day
given to the business of moving out
loaded cars and placing empties fo''
loading. On such occasions plaint1h
had been directed to cease operations
until the switching operations were
completed. On one Of these occasions
while occupying a place between the
end of a car and the track bumper at
the end of the track. he wa@injured BY
being caught between the car ana the
bumper The engine gave no notice
of it's approach, but plaintiff knew VI
was switching in the yard. Held. that
plaintiff was guilty of contributory
negligence and could not recover for
the injury. Johnson VS.. NJ. St Z. Ky
Co, 10 DIN 149 (Mich.)
FRAUDULENT CONvEYANCES.
A debtor while financially embar-
raised, conveyed property worth from
81. 500 to $1,000 to his son-in-la law for
recited consideration of $4,000 me
grantor had the conveyance recorded,
and redelivered to him, and thereafter
delivered it to the grantee, who resld-
ed in different city. In suit to re-
form the description and to set ASIDE
certain judgments as a cloud on ms
title, the grantee claimed that he was
the absolute owner of the property.
but. on cross-bill being filed, attack
ing the conveyance for fraud, testified
that the deed was given to secure an
indebtedness Of the grantor OF about
$500 which, however, he was unable to
prove by and written evidence. 1t also
appeared that the deed was executed
in violation of an injunction, and that
after it's execution, the grantor, In
bill filed in former creditors suit,
claimed ownership of the property.
Held, that a decree setting aside the
deed as fraudulent as against the
grantor's creditors was justified.
Clark VS.. Harper, "A N. E. 81 (1lL)
SERVANTS INJURIES.
Plaintff knew that the belt shifter
used on the machine which he was
tending was broken, and that the line
shaft from which the power was taken
was unguraded, and he climbed up to
the line shaft and attempted to throw
off the power by hand, whereby he was
injured. Plaintiff brought action for
damages. Held, that he was precluded
from recovry because of assumption OF
risk, in the absence of anyone showing
that he had been induced to remain In
the masters services through a prom
Use to repair or make the conditions
safe Robertson vs.. Ford, "A n. q. I
Undiana.)
RCE-DEsERTION.
Plaintiff filed bill for divorce from
her husband on August Is, 1903, alleg-
ing desertion for a period of two years,
the statutory requirement. In her tes-
timony the plaintiff fixed the date of
desertion as August 10. 1901, as near
as she could tell, but testified that she
could not state the exact day. Held,
that plaintiff must prove that defend
ant, wilfully deserted or absented him.
self from her, without any reasonable
cause, for the space of two years, and
inasmuch as the bill in the case was
filed two years after the date about
which the desertion took place. it was
not clear that there had been de-
sertion for two years, and divorce
was denied. Trimmer vs. Trimmer
"a N. e. SO (Ill)
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff, an electric light trimmer,
was injured by the fall of an electric
light pole which he had climbed, which
cayed below the ground. Plaintiff had
no experience with reference to such
poles and 1t was no part Of his duty to
examine them. Defendants superin-
tendent testified that he did not know
what the life Of such pole was, but
did know that 1t ought to be inspected,
but did not know how often the poles
were inspected at the time of the acct
dent, and that there was no special
time for examinations. Plaintiff
brought suit for the damage sustained
Held, that plaintiff didnot assume the
risk of such injury, and was entitled to
recover.
Dawson VS.. Gaslight Co., "a N. e.
912 (Mass.)
WILLS CONSTRUCTION.
Testator devised to his nephews and
nieces named the rents derived from
certain described real estate to
to paid to them yearly, for period
of thirty years, and in case any OF
them should die without an heir, his
or her share should go to the living
heirs. BY subsequent clause he de-
clared that thirty years after his
death he gave and bequeathed to such
nephews and nieces, or their heirs
and, if there We're no heirs, to be di-
vided equally among the surviving
heirs, all of such real estate, to be
sold, and the proceeds Of sale to be
divided equally. Held, that the limi-
tation Of thirty years could not be re-
jected, and the devise upheld as de-
wise in fee, but was void as offending
the rule against perpetuities.
Reid VS.. Voorhees, "a N. e. S04 (1ll.)
|
Peculiar Disappearance.
]. D. Runyan, of Butlerville, o., laid
the peculiar disappearance Of his pain
full symptoms of indigestion and bill
iousness to DR.. Kings New Life Pills.
He says: "They are perfect remedy
for dizziness, sour stomach, headache,
constipation, etc." Guaranteed at Nc
nnoaId e, Mahood Co,c dr,,0 ctoro.