Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-03-18
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES"
yImportant Decisions 5
INurRY 10 EMPLOYE.


Plaintiff had charge of part OF the
repairs of defendants building. ana
was injured by the fall of a timber,
occasioned by the giving way OF
brick pier Constructed by workmen i'll
a different department of the WORK.
with which plaintiff had nothing TO
do). when the building was at the
negligent direction of the superlnteh-
dent, who should have known that the
cement in the pier had not sufficiently
set let down on it. Plaintiff Drought
suit for damages. Held, that In the
absence of contributory negligence or
assumption of risk BY plaintlfl, De
PENDANT was liable for the injury Nu-
gent VS.. Cudahy Packing Co., lO2, n.
w. 442 Gowa).
FIDELITY BONDS.
A fidelity bond executed by defend
ant provided that it was to secure
plaintiff against pecunary loss OF
money or property in the possession
of the employe in the discharge OF his
duties, amounting to larceny or en-
bezzlement, committed during con-
tinuance of the bond: the intent being
that the surety should be responsible
only for moneys. securities, ana prop
erty diverted from the employer thru
fraud amounting to larceny or emDeZ-
element. Plaintiff advanced money,
property and credit to the employe TO
enable him to prosecute his work, eX-
pecting him to account therefore OH
final settlement. and engaged to GER
tain of his creditors to be responsible
for the employees bills, which plaintiff
thereafter paid. The employe subse-
auently absconded, having turned over
to plaintiff certain contracts which
turned out to be forgeries, and, in ad-
dition appropriated SIG collected on
contracts belonging to plaintiff, Held,
that the latter amount only was COW,
cred by the bond. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co. vs. Overstreet, 81, S. W.,
764 (Ky.).
INJURIES TO SERVANT.
Plaintiff. engaged in fastening GER
tain beams. was injured by the fall of
one of them after the block and tackle
by which it had been raised into place
had been removed. AS soon as the
beam was placed in position, tempor-
ary bolts were inserted to hold 1t
while permanent bolts were being adj
justed, and the nuts thereon screwed
tight The beam fell after the tenn
porary bolts had been inserted, by
reason of the breaking of bolt. Held,
that the tackle being unnecessary to
hold the beam after the temporary
bolts had been inserted, defendant was
not guilty of negligence in removing
it before the bolts had been perma-
nently adjusted. Furber VS.. Kansas
City Bolt and Nut Co., "a S. w. $50
(Mo.)
FALSE PRETENSES.
Prosecutor applied to defendant for a
position, who introduced him to A..
to arrange the terms of his employ
ment. A. required prosecutor to de-
post $50 as a guaranty of his honesty,
to be returned on termination of his
employment; but defendant on the
next day told prosecutor that, as $500 to
$500 would pass thru prosecutors
hands every day, he must deposit $3.50
more, which he did. Defendant pre-
tended to give him a receipt for this
money, which, instead, was bill of
sale for one-half interest in the room
| ing house business conducted by the
concern Prosecutor worked foN $l5
per week for three or four weeks, dur
| ing which time he drew $15.75, and,
becoming dissatisfied demanded the
return of his money, which defendant
refused to pay him, and then prose-
cutor discovered that his receipt there
fore was bill Of sale. Held, that pros
ecutor never having intended to part
| with the title to the money so depos-
tied, defendant, having required it to
his own use, was guilty of larceny, and
not false pretenses. State VS.. Buck,
81 S. w. 951 (Mo0