Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-02-20
ZImportant Decisions )

2lmpOrtant Decisions s
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
FIREWORKS IN STREET.
The National Associa ton of Demo-
| cratic Clubs, a political organization,
| had a parade on election evening, and
it's officers arranged to have Il display
of fireworks on square in the city
| of New York. The board of aldermen
of the city suspended the operation of
the ordinances prohibiting the dis
charge of fireworks so far as they APP
Piled to meetings or parades of poiti-
cal parties during the campaign Some
| 10000 people We're assembled to hear
the election returns and witness the
| parade. The fireworks We're placed
IN rows on the square. and about or
10 O'Clock on the evening in question.
trom some cause unknown some of the
fireworks exploded. killing plaintiffs
son. who was in the crowd Plaintiff
brought this action for dana ses. Held,
mat such exhibition of fireworks was
| a pubic nuisance. and inasmueh as the
| city. by it's board of aldermen, had per-
| United the same. it was liable for the
| damages sustained
Landau, VS.. New York, 70 n. e. 631
| IN. Y.)
RELATIONSHIPS
Plaintiff was the owner of a farm
of 100 acres a portion of which. known
as the woods was situated north of
and adjoining defendants right of way.
On April %. 1903, between 1880 and
II o'clock a. m. in a dry time and
within q few minutes after a freight
train on defendants road went west.
a fire broke out in plaintiffs woods
at a point about ten feet from the right
of way. At the time there was a brisk
wind blowing and the fire spread rap
idly, and before it could be controlled.
destroyed growing trees Before the
passage of the. freight there was no
fire in plaintiffs woods, and aside
from the locomotive that hauled the
train, there was no known actual or
probable source of the fire. Defendant
showed that the engine in question
was equipped with spark arrester.
which, on the evening afte~ the fire.
was inspected by a competent inspec-
tor. and found to be in good condi-
tlon. The other equipment connected
with the spark arrester was also in
good condition. and was the same size.
etc. used in all first class arresters.
The mesh of the netting used in the
spark arrester in question was of the
same size used in all first class ar
rosters. Some fire will find it's way
thru the netting under the most favor
able conditions, and once thru will
escape from the smokestack to the OBJ
en- air, and be subject to the control of
the elements. In an action brought by
plaintlff for the damage sustained, held.
tfat there was no evidence of negli-
gence sufficient to entitle him to recoy-
er.
Toledo, st. L. & w. Ry, VS.. Parks
"a N. e., 636 Nnd.)
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
Plaintiff desired to purchase unin-
numbered lands and was told by one,
TO whom the grantor referred him, that
the land was unincumbered save by
taxes, and when the deed was handed
plaintiff he asked the vendors agent
to read 1t, plaintiff not being able to
read we'll. The agent read it, but did
not read anything about mortgage,
to which the deed was made subject.
and thereafter the defendant (grantor)
read it to plaintiff in the same way.
Plaintiff purchased the property and
afterwards discovered that there was
mortgage against it, and that his
deed was subject to the mortgage.
Plaintiff then instituted these proceed
ings to recover damages by reason Of
the misrepresentation made. Held,
that plaintiff was entitled 20 recover.
his damages being the amount of the
incumbrance, if less than the value of
the land. Hail VS.. Brooks, Y N. e.
727 Gllinois).
STREET WAYS-COILISIONS
Plaintiff was driving a three-horse
team by the side of a street car track
in front of him drew nearer to the
track without looking to the rear for
street car. passed the rear hub of
the wagon. then three feet away, struck
the front hub and killed the near horse
when it passed on, running a consid-
cradle distance before it IVES checked.
Plaintiff brought suit for damages.
Held that the plaintiffs negligence in
so turning toward the track, without
looking to the rear. was the proximate
cause of the disaster for which defen-
dant was not liable. Cicardi VS.. ST.
Louis Transit Co., SO S. w. 9S1 (Mo).
Why Bat Masterson Quit.
Alfred Henry evils tells in the Satur-
day Evening Post why Bat Masterson
quit the strenuous life and settled
down for a humdrum existence in New