Omaha daily bee., 1905-06-24
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI

The following opinions were filed June S
1906.
1861. New Omaha Thomson-H oustur
Electric Light Company against Dent Er.
former Judgment adhered 20. Holcomb
{. J
l Whether plaintiffs intestate. an expert.
enceo lineinan with telephone and teleEru pt
| wires. had such knowledge and experience
respecting the handling OF wires charged
WIN heavy currents OF electricity and used
iQr hghtlng and power purposes and OF The
character and pliabiity OF the insula tiur
thereon as to its being brittle and liable Ia
break when twisted In fastening because
! on age and wear. and whether he acted
without due care and caution under the cir
cumstances and was charEeable with con
! ulnuturN negligence, held not to be so con.
cluslNely proved as that there Is no reas-
onabe chance Of different minds reachine
, dlnerent conclusions, and to have been
termination
ga An employe assumes only the risks
arising from the appliances and materials
70 be used by him or from the manner In
Whlch the business In which he Is to take
parI Is conducted, when such risks are
known TO him or are apparent and obvious
10 persons OF his experience tand under
sI esIIaInsoing. Islg. y mon S. y. Co. against Goodman
2 Whether or not the employe exer.
Clsed que care and caution in looking for
breaks in the insulation on the wire he was
, ,MuLhInG Win and fastening, and whether
Lt was Eulliy OF cOntrilutOrN negligence IN
respect thereto, held, under the evidence to
f HuNt been properly submitted to the jury
Ioi lls ueterminHtiOu.
ta) A break occurring in the insulation on
lut wire WillCh was being handled and fast
tneo around a glass insulator by the plain
IN niestdte, is not an open and obvious
defect notice of which viii he Imputed to
MN where, under the evidence. there gx-
ISIS reasonable ground for difference of
opinion as 10 his being able to observe
suCh break in the ordinary way and with
oul making an extra effort specially for
me purpose OF ascertaininE the condition of
the insulation where the break occurred
aiteT the wire was fastened
.r 3. me rule announced in New Omaha
Ihomson- Houston Electric Light Company
against Rombold Neb., ". n w. 1850 on
me evidence In that case as to the duty
oI nneman OF an electric light company
10 inspect wires with which ne was work
ing 10 discover defects held, not appli-
ca pIe 70 the case al bar and the case cited
Is therefore distinguished.
va Inc judgment Of aff1rmance hereto
Iore entered, New Omaha Thpmspn-Eous
ION Electric Light Company against Dent,
l3oG. Chicago. Rock Island q PAcihr
s1alI"4y Company against Kerr Error
IRON Douglas Affirmed. Holcomb c. l.
l. Where petition Is for the first time
hssalied IN this court because Of its al
legeo failure TO state cause of action its
allegations will receive liberal construc.
ton with view of giving effect TO the
pleaders purpose, and, If possible, sustain
the petition.
(a) A reviewing court will not only IN.
erally construe petition thus assailed in
order TO uphold # If possible, but will view
- al nv AlkhA pl lnt enLlre record anC
where, from the nature of the answer a n6
the testimony adduCed, il appears thai
both parties have placed the same cunRtruc.
ton on such petition, this court will not
ignore such construction in ruling on the
sufhciencE OF the petition, even though the
petition standing alone might not admit OF
such construction.
o. A defective or ambiguous petition
may be aided and its infirmities cured by
aVerments in the answer. Bebee " Lati.
mer, 81 Neh., 205
Cd The petition in the case at bar ex.
amtned and when construed In the light OF
the entire record and under the rules above
/ mentioned held to state cause of action and
sufticient to support a judgment in plain.
tiff s favor.
2 The master is liable for the acts of hi.
servant within the general scope of his EN-.
ployment while about his masters bust
ness, though the act be negligent, wanton
willful or malicious.
IA Evidence examined and held suff
Cient to support verdict in the plaintiT
/ favor and to show that the acts done 10y
the servant, which are complained of. wer'
within the general scope of mis- employ
ment and authority, and in furtherance o.
! the business and interests of his master.
( 1868. Sheebley against Hurley. Erro
/ from Dixon. Affirmed. Sedgwck, J.
i. The statute allowing a public officer
| fee Of 8 cents for each certificate AM
/ seal does not contemplate that the Off
| Ger must formulate statement of fact
/ to which he certifies. If he upon reuues
| performs such service he will be entitled
/ to reasonable compensation therefor. Tn