Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-04-03
Zlmportant Decisions !
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..

Plaintiff was returning to his home
one evening at about 10 o'clock on
a car of the defendant. He had in
formed the conductor where he de-
sired to alight. The car was an open
one, with seats running across, and
steps on each side. When near the
middle of the block, the signal. by
ringing the bell, was given by the con-
ductor for a stop at the next cross
street where plaintiff was to alight.
Immediately upon ringing the bell, the
plaintiff arose, went to the edge of the
car, put one foot on the step, the other
on the PLATFORM and his hand on the
rail. While in that position there was
a sudden jerk of the car, which plain
tiff claims threw him from the car, in
consequence of which he received an
injury Held, that he was not entitled
to recover in the absence of evidence
as to the cause of the jerk. Conroy VS..
r. r. Co, 1O2. N. W., GAL (Mich.).
ACCIDENT AT CROSSING.
The tracks of the defendant and the
c., st. p, M. & Omaha Railroad Com
pany intersect at Turtle Lake, in the
state of Wisconsin. The statutes Of
that state expressly require all trains
operated on railroads therein, before
passing over another railroad track at
a point of intersection, to come to a
stop at distance of 400 feet there
from. Defendant, in violation of the
statute, failed to stop one of its trains
on the occasion complained of in this
action, and negligently collided at the
crossing with a train on the Omaha
road, seriously injuring plaintiff. Plain
tiff is boy about u years of age, and
got upon the Omaha train when it
stopped before passing the crossing for
the purpose Of riding from there to the
station. He was riding upon or cling
ing to the steps of one of the cars OF
that train, in violation of statute
of the state of Wisconsin. He was not
a passenger, nor did he intend to be-
come such, and his presence on the
train was unknown to the Omaha
Company or any of its employees.
Held, that the obligation of defendant
to exercise reasonable care to avoid
a collision with the Omaha train, or
to injure persons lawfully thereon, did
not extend to plaintiff, and he cannot
recover. Wickenburg VS.. NJ. st. P. &
S. S. Railway, 1o2, N. W., 713 (Minn.).
WILLS-CONSTRUC
Testator bequeathed all of his prop
erty to his wife and her heirs and as
signs, and appointed her sole executriz.
A separate clause Of the will stated
that it was testator's wish and desire
that his wife would pay $500 per year
to his sister. Held, not to create or
charge such a trust upon the estate as
will support an action by the sister
to enforce it. Post VS.. Moore, 70, N. q.
1872 IN. "
EXPERT TESTIMONY.
Plaintiff, a street car conductor, sued
for injuries caused by the derailing Of
train running around curve at a
speed of about eight miles an hour.
The rails were spread, and the right
forward wheel was worn and the
fange Clipped. A motorman and a
mechanic of twenty years experience.
testified, as experts, that the derail-
ment, in their opinion, was caused by
the track; having spread, and by the
defect in the f1ange Of the forward
wheel Held, error. as it was a ques-
ton for the jury to determine the
cause of the derailment, and was not
a case requiring their opinion, even if
the witnesses had been experts.