Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-02-16
ee~~AN1@@e@aA@A@@@@1@@anH'
EImportant Decisions
&Q,tz0Ngt1D0sH,Srs SOC 4,.rtV% Ss29~&TSS'

sH1@@@1@@4@% @SHS@3|SNsS""'c''''S'eso
Elmportant DecisionsS
aQ,%a@W@e~p0ss9 e~1$sa~Se@s$F
ctifa.,ltAM otlnAc e HEALING.
III April i}9e. b'diatift suffered from
IN attack oi dpf.ea l.ttg employed a
1 Mcdietl inIaetitionel for several months
and tea,nei IA i srleral way. the
co9,se pt,la0ca ~ PHYSICIANS in the
\ tre.,t}nclu 81 thai disease. During the
/ sun me Of ~ ahe ecame Interested
in tho 30 trjnSs Of christian Science.
/ and att rfle4 meet ia - where the de-
4 PENDANT told of the wonderful cures he
had perloln8e |. In November. 1889,
| ilailftif! noticed symptoms similar to
| those which had ushered in the prey
| iolts 1tt.cle OF appendicitis, visited the
/ defendant at his home. informed him
| of tie nature of her trouble, and en-
| ployed him to treat her. The defend
ant told her that Il surgical operation
was not necessary, that she was not
| to take any medicine and that he would
and could cure her if she continued
his treatment. He advised her to con-
tinue her usual diet of solids, and adj
| I1lillSItItNl lItblUIsIli W 'itt''ita ~
| front OF her in an attitude of prayer
The plaintiff employed defendant Tor
several days and during this time her
Illness increased, and she finally placed
herself in the hands Of physicians. sub
mitted to n physical operation ana was
cured Plaintiff then brought this &C
ton against defendant, claiming negll-
gence In his treatment of her. Held,
that she having voluntarily consented
to follow the advice and abide by the
result of the prayers of Christian
Science healer. she is precluded from
Receiving damages for negligence on
the ground that public policy is oppos-
ed to such treatment Spead vs.. rom
linson, 50 Att 376 On. HI.
AGENCY RENOCATION.
Plaintiffs were employed by defend
ant to- self lots, and the contract pro-
vidcd that the plaintiffs should depos-
II daily all money received which plain
lifts continually failed to do, and de-
PENDANT revode the agency and plain
tiff brought this suit for damages.
Held, that a continuous violation OF the
stimulation requiring daily deposits OF
money by plaintiffs was good ground
for terminating the agency. ana iur-
tler. that n contract of agency is re-
vocable at any time for good cause:
Mac Farren VS.. Gallinger 80 All. 800
PaO.
RAILROADS-N EGLIGENCE
Defendant advertised an excursion
at reduced rates for certain falf. oh
the last day of the fair plalntlH pur-
chased round trip ticket good fos'
that day ONLY On the return trip all
the seats in the coach were occupied
and people were standing in the aisles
and ON the platforms. The car III
which plaintiff was standing was badly
crowded. men were smoking in the
car and il was hot, ventilation was
poor and by the time the train mad
proceeded thre or four miles plalntli
became sick and thought he would
faint. and not being able to get near
window, he opened the door ana
stepped out on the platform. Thinking
that riding backwards might increase
his sickness, he stepped across on lhe
opposite platform and turned his BACK
TO the end of the car, leaning against
it and held onto the hand rail. He STOOD
in this position for few moments
when he lost consciousness and rolled
down the steps and off on the ground,
and was injured The statutes OF
michigan provide that one cannot re-
coven for injuries received while nm
nroperly on the platform of a car. Held,
that this statute recognized by infer
ence conditions where one might be en-
filled TO recover even though he was
riding on the platform, and that plain
81 of this
case was not guilty of contributory
negligence in going on the PLATFORM.
Morgan VS.. L. S. & M. S. Railway. IL
d. L. n. 713 (Mich)
PERSONAL INJURIES.
Plaintiff, more than 20 years OF age,
had been employed in the saw mill OIL
the defendant for more than TOUR
months previous to the accident. The
saw in use was large circular saw,
the lower part of which resolved IN a
nit in the ground. The sawdust, as IL
came from the saw was conhned by
and fell thr, an open bottOmed pox,
shanea like a hopper, smaller at the
bottom than at the top. This box sur
rounded and closed in the saw AT
time the box would choke up WIN
sawdust and bark, and it was necessary
to open a door in the box and punch out
the distractions. 1t was customary to
use wooden stick about twenty inches
long to punch out the bark and saw
dust. The plaintiff was engaged in
cleaning out this box. and while so do
ing, allowed his hand to come in con-
tact with the saw, and received in
iurjes. for which he sought to recover
damages. He based his right to recov-
or on the failure of defendant to warn
him aft the danger. Held, that defend
ant was not required to warn plaintiff
against such dangers as are open 10
ordinary observation and subject to