Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-02-20
: 1mportant Decisionst
NEGLIGENCE.


A depression about four inches deep
was made In the cement of a basement
floor of the freight elevator to sink In
to, so that the bottom of the elevator
would be on level with the floor.
light at the elevator entrance had been
out of repair for some time and the
entrance was poorly lighted. Plaintiff,
an employe of defendant, stood near
the shaft as the elevator descended.
and her foot, extending over the edge
Of the depression, was injured. No au-
tomato gates were in front OF the
shaft, as required by law. Held: %
That plaintiff was guilty of contribu-
tory negligence, as she could have dis
covered that her foot extended over
the depression. (2) Whether the alb
scene of the safety gates contributed
to the injury and whether defendant
was guilty Of negligence In not fur
nishing gates, not decided In view OF
PLAINTIFFS negligence and the further
fact that the presence of the gate
would not have avoided the accident.
Roberts VS.. Sanitas Nut Food Co.
(Mich. Supreme Ct. Dec. 'O5.)
ACCIDENTAL KILLING.
The defendants were indicted for
murder upon the following state of
facts: The defendants set upon one
John Young with intent to rob him,
and he, firing at them to protect him
self, accidentally shot and killed one
Anderson Young, third party. The
Kentucky supreme court holds that
there is no constructive liability for
the filling In such case, since the
criminal act Of the defendants was not
the cause Of the killing, but merely
created a condition on which an inde-
pendent cause operated. BY reductio
as absurdum the court shows that on
the principle contended for, If the per-
son attacked had killed one of the rob-
bers instead of a stranger, then the
other robber would have been guilty OF
his pals" murder, and the latter
would have also been guilty of his own
murder. This point, though one of first
impression in Kentucky, has several
times been determined in the same
way by other courts.
Com. VS.. Moore, SO S. w. Rep. 1855,
(Ky.)
RAILROADS.
Plaintiff shipped carload of
matches and the matches ignited
while the car was in charge of defend
ant road. Plaintiff seeks to recover
for the negligent handling Of the car
by defendant. Held: That evidence
was admissible showing that the
matches were securely packed when
loaded, that the car was receipted by
defendant road in good condition, that
the couplers were cracked and replaced
by defendant, as showing rough hand
ling by the defendant, and that such
facts made case to go to the jury.
The court further held that the books
of railroad in which are entered in
the regular course Of business the rec
ords of cars received and delivered,
showing the condition of the cars, are
admissible in evidence to prove the
receipt and delivery OF a car in good
condition.
Modern Match Co., Ltd, VS.. B. & o.
Ry. Co. D. L. N. Vol. IL. 269.
ANTITRUST Law UPHELD.
In the case Of Hartford Fire Insur-
ance Company VS.. state, SO S. w. Rep.
AZ, the Arkansas supreme court holds
that the act Of January, 1905, prohib-
iting any corporation doing business in
the state from becoming a member OF
any pool, trust or agreement to fix in
surance rates, in Arkansas or else
where, prohibits a foreign insurance
company from doing business in Ar
kansas If it is a member of a pool to
fix rates anywhere, although such pool
is not crea; il or maintained in Arkan-
sas and does not affect or fix rates in
that state and does not attempt to do so.
The court further holds that the pas
sage was within the power Of the leg
islature, since that body is entitled to
prescribe the terms on which foreign
corporations shall be permitted to do
business within the state