Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-03-27
{lmportant Decisions
NJ AsTER AMID spRv AMI

MASTER AMID SERVANT.
Plaintiff a boy of Is years and II
months old, was set to work on a
notcher and corrugating machine. The
notcher clipped the corners from metal
sheets which were afterwards put thru
| the rolls of the corrugating machine.
The notching machine did not always
cut the corners of the metal clear Off,
and when this condition was noticed,
plaintiff would reach over and remove
the corners from the sheet While re-
moving a corner plaintiffs hand was
drawn between the rolls and he was
injured. In an action for damages FOR
personal injuries it was held: /. That
it was question for the jury whether
plaintiff was put to work at employ
ment whereby his life and limb were
in danger within the meaning of the
statute, prohibiting the employment OF
any child under the age of Is years In
any manufacturing establishment
whereby it's life or limb is endangered.
g. That whether plaintiff was guilty of
contributory negligence in removing
corners from sheets as they We're being
fed to the roll was a question for the
jury. 1t was further held that this en-
ployment was in violation Of the stat
ute and the child could therefore re-
cover, and that the child did not as
bide Co. d. L. N, Vol. 10, 712 (Mich.)
RAILROADS.
Plaintiff, who was blind, was ex-
cluded from one of the trains of the
defendant company, and in an action
to recover damages against the COM
pany it was held: That a carrier of
passengers is not liable for excluding
an unattended blind person from it's
train, unless the agent to whom appli-
cation for transportation is made
knows or has reasonable grounds to
believe, that such person is fit and
competent to travel alone notwith-
standing his infirmity. The court
said: The general rule is that
While persons who are i'll have
right to enter and travel upon the
conveyance of common carrier of
passengers, nevertheless the carriers
are not bound to accept as passeng-
err, without an attendant, one VINO,
because of physical or mental disable
ity, is unable to take care of himself;
but should the carrier voluntarily ac-
cept as passenger such person
without an attendant, his inability to
care for himself, rendering special
care and assistance necessary, being
apparent or made known at the time
of his application for carriage to tine
servants of the carrier, the latter Will
be held responsible if such care and
assistance are not afforded.
Illinois Cent. Ry Co., VS.. Smith, 81
So. Rep. 643 (Miss)
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Plaintiff, one Rogers, refused to tes-
tify before the grand jury in relation
to a charge under investigation, ana
an application was made to the court
to compel him to do so. The court
subsequently, entered an order requir-
ing him to answer. But prior to his
second appearance before them the
grand Jury found an indictment in the
matter, and the charge was no longer
pending before them. The plaahaih
again refused to answer the same
questions, and was fined for contempt
of court. In annulling the nne the
supreme court of California said: Un-
der these circumstances these ques-
tions were no longer material or per-
tinent to an issue before the grand
Jury. so far as the record shows, save
and except the single question as to
the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff
himself. Whatever may have been the
situations when the questions were
first asked, the superior court had no
power to compel the plaintiff to answer
them after the issue to which they
were material has been determined and
the investigation thereof by the grand
Jury finally concluded. VS..
Superior Court, IS Pac. Rep. 344 (Cal)
PHTIIALMOLOGIST.
The supreme court holds that
person engaged in fitting glasses to the
eve. styling himself CDR" and holding
himself out as an phthalmologist,"
is to be regarded as a medical prac-
titioner within the meaning of a stat
ute regarding the practice of medi-
cine. The court said: "The law
should not be so construed so as to de-
prive the people of the benefits intend
ed by the law regulating the practice
Of medicine, but such a construction
should be given it as to carry into eff
feet the evident intent of the legisla-
ture."-State VS.. Yegge, 103 N. w. Rep.
II Is. Dakota.)