The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-12-22

Matthias Pitzl, appellant VS.. George Winter
defendant; Peter ]. Winter, as executor of the
estate OF John Winter. deceased, ct al, gar
correspondents. ..--.
Syllabus: Ftrst-Upon garnishee disclosure
the executor Of an estate may introduce testi-
mony and evidence other than his own for the
purpose of confederation and explanation by de-
veloping facts additional to those disclosed by
him, and for the purpose Of showing that money
and effects under his control executor do not
in fact belong to the judgment debtor.
Second-Section $500, G. S. 1894, was not
enacted for the sole benefit Of representatives of
decedents, and in such garnishment disclosure
proceedings the Judgment debtor is a party
interested and is prohibited from testifying on
behalf Of the executor for the benefit of the
estate concerning conversations had by the judg-
ment debtor with the testator to the applica-
ton of the devise to eXtinguish debt due
the estate In case Of the testators decease prior
to its payment.
Order reversed Lewis J,
In re last will and testament of Mary Sheeran,
deceased, Maria E. Sheeran, appellant VS..
Emma Sheeran, respondent.
Syllabus: Tristan heir-at-law is a party
aggrieved and may at any time within thirty
days appeal from an order admitting will to
probate. aItho he did not appear at the hearing
and take part in the proceedings. Chapter 81,
Laws 1908.
second-When such heir dies after the entry
Of the order in the probate court, and before
the expiration of the time allowed to appeal, a
special administrator may, within the time linn
Third-If on trial in the district court. upon
such appeal, it is established that the will pur-
porting to have been executed was void for the
reason that the testate was not Of sound and
disposing mind and memory, it is void for all
purposes and cannot be held invalid as to per-
| sonal property and valid as to real estate.
Judgment affirmed. Lewis, J. 2
| James Abel, appellant, vs.. Modern Woodmen of
America. respondent. r.. E,l. 8.
| Syllabus Action upon a mutual benefit GER
| tifcate issued by the defendant, which pro-
| vided that if the member should engage in any
occupation prohibited by the bylaws of the
society the certificate should become ipso facto
| void as to any claim on account of the death
| OF the member traceable to employment in such
hazardous occupation. Held:
| First-The certificate was not void for all
| purposes in case the member engaged in the pro-
hibited occupation. The defendant is exempted
in such case from all liability on account of
| the death of the member by accident or disease
directly traceable to such prohibited -occupa.
| ton, but the certificate remains in full force
| and effect except as to the hazards Of such
! occupation. M
Second-The defendant is not estopped from
| insisting upon Its exemption from liability fol
| the death of the member due to his engaging
| in such occupation by accepting his dues anf
| assessments with knowledge that he had entered
upon such occupation.
Order affirmed. Start, G. J.
state Of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. o. A. Ored
1 son, appellant.
Syllabus: Section 1895, G. s. 1894 imposin.
! fine or imprisonment or both upon anyone prac
Itlcing medicine without license. is to be lib
] orally construed as to reasonably effectuat
| it's purpose to prevent frauds, and to conserv
the public health.
That an unlicensed person has practiced medi
| cine is the gist of the misdemeanor and not
gratuitous incident to 1t. That such person has
| for fee, prescribed any drug, medicine o
1 other agency for the treatment of disease is ONT
kind Of evidence Of guilt, and not the EXCLUSIVE
substance of the offense.
The evidence in this justified the convic
ton OF defendant for practicing medicine withou
license by prescribing medicine for a fee a
. charged in the Indictment.
I Order affirmed. -asgard, j.
Andrew Carlson, as administrator Of the estat
of Erick Pehrson. deceased, appellant, VS.
Chicago & North Western Railway Company
respondent
Syllabus: In an action to recover damage
for the death of person, caused by a collisio
with q train OF defendant. at the intersection
of street and railroad track where the un
| contra dicted evidence couclusiye1y shows tina
when decedent was fifty feet distant from tn
81 railroad track a train could have been seen a
a distance of $500 feet from such crossing, an
l xrborn tho tpstinnonr shows that the decea 40