Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-07-06
{lmportant Decisions
pERsoNIAL 1NJuRIBs.

Plaintiff was a laborer in defendants
employ. engaged In construction WORK
on defendants electric road. His injury
occurred after dark by collision be-
tween the construction train OF defen-
dant, on which he was being carried
home. and train of cars loaded with
gravel also belonging to the defendant
The collision occurred on a spur track.
The train on which the plaintiff was
riding consisted of locomotive push
ing ten empty fiat cars and pulling a
single way car When plaintiff board
ed the train he did not enter the way
car but seated himself in the space be
tween the end of the car and the en-
closure. Defendants roadmaster told
plaintiff that he had better go inside
the car and the plaintiff replied, Il got
up here to watch the tools to see that
none Of them fall off and have good
seat" The roadmaster said, "All right
then" Until the day OF the accident
the spur on which the accident oc-
Cured had been siding long enough
to hold all the cars of the defendant
company, but on that day, to the
knowledge Of the plaintiff. 1t had been
shortened and made into spur. NO
light was placed on the cars ON the
spur and no notice was given to those
in charge of the train that loaded cars
had been placed on the spur. In an ac-
ton for damages to plaintiff resulting
from said accident. Held: /. That the
general superintendent was vice.
principal for whose negligence defen-
dant was responsible. (2) That the
failure of the general superintendent
to notify those In charge of the train
that the spur was occupied by cars
was negligence. ca That plaintiff
was not guilty Of contributory negli-
gence in remaining outside of the way
car. (4 That the risk assumed by
plaintiff incident to his employment
was not the risk Of the collision
POLICE INTERFERENCE
The plaintiff was proprietor Of
"Raines law hotel" sought to enjoin the
police authorities from stationing Off
GERS in front of his premises, on sus-
piclon that the place was a disorderly
house. to notify customers who were
in the place or about to enter 1t, that
1t was likely to be raided at any mo-
ment and those found In the premises
would be liable to arrest. The court
reversed an order Of the lower court
granting temporary injunction, hold
ing that such relief was not available
on the ground that equity would not
interfere to prevent the enforcement
of the criminal law. 1t was held that
the proprietor if injured by the ac-
ton of the police authorities might
maintain an action at law for damages.
Delaney VS.. Flood, rs N. e. Rep.
2P8 QSup) CT. of N. "
BURGLARY.
The Tennessee court holds that the
raising Of e. window. already partly
open but not enough to admit mans
body, constitutes sufficient break
ing to constitute the crime of burglary.
A number of authorities to the contrary
on this point were cited but the court
refused to recognize them saying, TT
seems to us useless refinement to hold
that the various instances cited are
sufficient evidence OF breaking, and
that the further raising of window
partly open Is not sufficient evidence,
when the opening in the window is en-
larged by the person entering SO as to
make the aperture sufficient to admit
the body. Here is material change
Of the status. and the change is ac-
complished by the application Of force"
Claiborne VS.. State. SO S. w. Rep. 352
(Tenn.)
LIABILITY OF STREET RAILWAY.
A conductor in the employ of the de-
fendant company threw dead hen in
a spirit Of fun at the motorman Of the
car In which the plaintiff was riding,
the hen miscarried, struck the window
near which plaintiff was sitting, and
injured her. In an action for damages
the supreme court held that the street
railway company was liable for the in
jury. The company claimed that the
liability for such acts did not extend
beyond the crew of the car in which
the passenger was being carried, but
the court said" We are of the opinion
that the liability of this defendant is
the same as if the conductor who threw
the hen had been in charge of plaintiffs
car.
Hayne VS.. Union Street Railway
Company, rs N. e. Rep. 219 (Mass)