Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1905-06-16

misrepresented AMI that tIsir trade
was injured nv carrying thrm in
stock. The district court decided for
the PLAINTIFF. and defendants appealed
J Fl. Miller. ret pondon', Va. J.
Norris Carnts. appellant.
Where party 10 al action was
called by his adversary for cruss-ex-
animation. whether the examination
may he continued by his own counsel
rests in the discretion If the trial
court. Jones vs.. Bradford, 20 MINI.
800. Olson W. Aubolee, 80 N. W.
Rep 1928.
The issue being whether q certain
accounting had been had, and the
correctness of the same. it was not
error to admit evidence of the general
business transactions In which the
parties to the accounting had been
engaged.
The admissions and declarations Of
common law arbitrators, made during
the course of an attempted arbitra-
tion. do not constitute an award, and
In the absence of any evidence that
final award was made by the arbitra-
tors. it will % conclusively presumed
that none was made.
Under the evidence in this case,
defendant was not entitled to an In
struction to the effect that the jury
should consider whether or not plain
tiff advised defendant to destroy Ger
tain checks.
Order affirmed Lewis, J.
The parties are both we'll known
citizens of Royalton. Three years ago
they went into q cattle deal together.
In settling the plaintiff claims there
was due him $500, and that Carnes
gave him check for "a instead. The
matter was submitted to arbitration,
but there was a question as to results.
Miller sued for the balance claimed to
be due, $396, and interest A district
court jury gave the plaintiff $452. 50,
and Carnes appealed from the verdict.
The supreme court also decided an
important case. relative to damage of
land by floods arising from log jams,
in Hennepin county case, as fol-
lows:
In an action to recover damages for
injuries to plaintiffs farm caused by
the alleged wrongful acts of defen-
dant. it appeared that defendant, by
permitting an accumulation of logs
in the Mississippi river adjacent to
plaintiffs premises, caused the waters
thereof to overflow it's banks and cast
upon plaintiffs land large quantities
of sand, driftwood and debris, there
by rendering it unfit for the uses to,
which it had been adapted.
Evidence was offered by defendant
tending to show that the injuries COM
lained of were temporary, and that
the land could. at cost estimated by
the witnesses, be restored to its
former condition. Plaintiff claimed
that the injuries were in their nature
permanent.
The court charged the jury that the
measure of plaintiffs damages was
the difference In vslne Of the farm be-
fore and after the wrongful acts of
defendant: Held not error, but q
correct statement of the general rule
applicable to such cases. Held, fur
ther, that If defendant desired the
question whether the cost of restor-
ing the premises to their former con-
dition was less than the difference In
value, and hence the proper rule Of
damages, submitted to the jury. the
court should have been requested to 90
charge. The failure to give such in
struction was not, In the absence of
such q, request, reversible error.
Order affirmed. Brown, J.
The fire department was called out
about 80 Friday morning by q blaze