The Caldwell tribune., 1905-11-11

e @H<>c~~Nsa.ee !, ait
That a defect In a street
the original plan of constr,,s.,s E part Of
IN Stone oll' vs.. Seattle tWash, ! ys a. = hsld
4, a, 26s not to relieve tbe ~, Y :.
liability for injuries TO travs,sa. S.ss from
by 1t. ass.. : assaers caused
The right Of a carrier a IT,.
special contract, his commo, @ by
oility and thereby to exemnt Ss S,ala. "a.
from liability for any loss ,aa,,a, aasels
otherwise than by the nep,isoaa. su,uas
m1sfeasance of himself or bls ense se. ot
is sustained in Russell vs., Frla Ma san.s y !,
road company IN. ]. Err 4 ,r ANN Aal,, =.
L. R. A. 433. App1 "
A policy Of insurance on +bo S.
ture Of house is held, IN no. n1i.lt'
National Insurance COMPANY n y. y
1. r. A. 479, to be void in @ toto =, :, " y
large part Of the furniture has ~.
purchased on the instaIlment nlsn 1sel ssa
Is not paid for and the policy nro.'s. ,, aIu
that 1t shall be void If the ipterost ~ :,
the insured is other than uncondit,onO, y,
and sole ownership. A"'
In case Of breach Of a ca,r,.a
contract in state whose constitnt,er
prohibits the carrier from contraot,na
to limit its common-law liability n -
held, In Adams Express company Va
walker (hy0, 67 L. R. A. 412, that tho
carrier cannot, in the courts Of tbot
state, have the benefit of a contract
valid where made in another stats
limiting such liability. .-r4
Statutes providing a SUMMARY roma,
dy for landlord to obtain possessIoo
of leased premises are held, in Kant.
mann VS.. Liggett Pa), 81 L. R. A
853, not to deprive equity of jurisd,c.
ton of a suit to determine the right
Of the parties under a clause in tba
lease giving a right to renewal at A
rental to be fixed by arbitrators, since
the remedy provided by them is not
adequate.
TO excuse person for assaultna
another under the belief that he iss
third person, upon whom an assault
would be justified, it is held, in Crab.
tree VS.. Dawson (Ky.), 81 L. R. A. $685.
that he must exercise the highest de.
gree of care practicable under the cir
cumstances to ascertain whether OF
not the person whom he Is about to
strike is in fact the one whom he be.
lieves him to be. The question of mis-.
taken identity as justification for as.
sault is subject of note to this case.
A statute requiring an insurer to fix
the insurable value Of the property in.
sured and to state such value In the
policy, the measure of damage In case
Of total loss to be the amount so fixed,
and in case Of partial loss such pro-
portion of the amount upon which
premiums are paid as the damage suB'
tanned is of insurable value as fixed by
the agent, and providing that the In
surer shall be estopped to deny that
the property insured was worth at the
time Of insuring the amount 80 fixed
and that the agent soliciting the insur'
ance shall be held to be the agent OF
the insured-is held, In Hartford Fire
Insurance company VS.. Redding FlaQ,
A. T.
Where it appeared on the trial for
that the victim was shot and
wounded by one person using shot
gun and another using pistol, and
that one Of the wounds inflicted Dy
the pistol was certainly mortal, ana
that probably one or more OF tns
inflicted by the shotgun Were
sos it is held, in Walker vs.. stats
(Ga.), Ct L. r. A. 426, that, In order 10
convict the person using the shotgun
IF murder in such a case, the evidence
must be such as to authorize the jury
to find that death actually ensued aS
the result Of the act Of the defendant
On trial, in the absence of any con'
,piracy between the parties doing Inc
shooting. The other authorities OIL
homicide resulting from injuries W
lifferent persons acting independently
ire collated in a note to this case' -