Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-09-05
{lmportant Decisions


{1mportant Decisions
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PERSONAL INJURIES.
Plaintiff, man Of IS years Of az
was struck by one Of defendants cal
and injured and brought this acti0
for damages The plaintiff and tw
others were engaged In patching u
floor Of bridge. The plaintiff was be
tween the sidewalk and the outer ra
Of the Unbound track, and was nea
the track, STOPPING down on one knee
marking plank, when the runnin1
board OF the car struck him in th|
face. He was facing towards Cam
bridge, from which place only car
could come which could do him an
injury. There was nothing to proven
his seeing In the direction Of Cam
bridge distance of about go yards
Held that 1t was proper to direct
verdict for defendant Quinn v. Boz
ton Elevated Ry., "a N. p. 6S7 (Mass.
Observation-Disclosures.
Defendant agreed to connect It
electric system with PLAINTIFFS store
and furnish electric current for light
ing. and plaintiff agreed that q
change should be made in the nurnbe
or candle power of the lamps or thu
wiring Of the premises without de-
PENDANTS written consent; that all ap1
pliances furnished by defendant should
remain Its property, and that all wire1
Of the customer to which defendant,
service wires were connected should
be so installed that the lcompa41
could carry out its contract, and tn
plaintiff should allow defendant
its agents to enter the premises
It's property in repair and for the
pose Of inspecting the wires or al
atus. Plaintiff was injured and bro
suit for damages. alleging negligsl
on the part Of defendant In failing
inspect the wires and apparatus. He'd
that defendant did not owe to plain
tiff the duty Of inspecting the wirel
and apparatus belonging to him. B1
nellie v. Electric Light Co. - \,
676 (Mass.)
Defendant, board Of educati
5cavated on its own lots for
ton OF school building, ~
fully and negligently carrie
cavation below the statutor
nine feet, thereby undermine
juring the foundation and Y
building Of plaintiff, an adjd
er. Plaintiff brought suit fc
Held, that the defendant wa
In It's corporate capacity. b.
poration organized for chart
poses, and not for profit
volk, u N. e. s4S (Ohio.)
INJURIES-AUTOMOB1L&
Defendant drove its automobile
speed OF twenty miles an hour towards
plaintiff on a narrow approach 70 n
bridge, from whence plaintiff could npt|
escape without proceeding forward to|
a CROSS street, and though observiite|
the frightened condition Of plaintiftal
horse and his signals to them to stop
and allow him to escape, refused to|
slacken It's speed, causing plaintin.e|
horse to run away and in3ure him
Plaintiff brought suit for damages.|
Held, that the use of automobiles on "a
public highway IL not = matter Of law
negligence, but that the conduct o.
defendant, as outlined above was such
an understandable use Of the highway1
AZ would render defendant liable Tor
plaintiffs injuries. indiana SPRINGS
Co. VS.. Brown, ~ n. 3. 616 (Ind.l
ACCOMPLICEs TESTIMONY.
Defendant was indicted for burglary.
His accomplish testified that he and
defendant took slot machine out Of =.
depot, broke 1t open, and divided N
equal shares, Its cash contents, which
consisted Of four pennies Two othefs
witnesses stated that shortly after the.
slot machine was said to have been