Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-04-19
>e<pNAe-e@1~@1s -@S@NN1~@@1fs
important Decisions!
PERSONAL INJURIES.

PERSONAL I'M URIOS.
Plaintiff, while watching display or
fireworks in a public park, was Sc
Verely injured by being struck on the
mead by a falling rocket stick. In nm
action against the fireworks company
Tor damages, the New York court OF
appeals held that it was for the jury
To say whether the discharge of fire.
works was negligent The court held
lhat the discharge of fire.
works in a public park is not neccs-
sarlly negligent. The court said: 1T
may we'll be that a discharge of fire
"orks in a city street, at least in city
uehsely populated, like the city of New
ork, constitutes a nuisance per Sc
puI We are of the opinion that ii Is nor
necessarily Illegal to exhibit display
VI fireworks in an open space like
park where an exhibition, if conducted
win care. involves no serious danger
10 persons or property. Crowley vs..
Rochester Fireworks Co, 76 N. Il. Rep.
40 N W.
OIL REFINERY ACT INVALID.
Under the Kansas coil Refinery Eilf
the state attempted to operate an oil
rehhery to compete with the Standard
on Company 1t was the intention OF
the bill that this refinery waa to be
constructed and operated by convict Ia
Dor. In the case of State VS.. Kelly
where the constitutionality of the bill
was Questioned, the state contended
that the purpose of the legislature was
TO build a branch penitentiary in that
part OF the state where oil is found in
large Quantities, and, incidental there
TO, and as part of the branch peni-
Tertiary, for the purpose of furnishing
proper employment for the inmates of
the state pententiary. to build and OPP
crate an oil refinery. The court, how
ever. held that the obvious purpose of
the act was to compete with that "ra-
pacious corporation" the Standard OIL
ana was therefore in contravention OF
that provision of the constitution that
the state shall never be a party In car
rying on any works of internal i'm
provement" State VS.. Kelly, 81 Pac.
Rep. 450 (Kas.).
DAMAGES.
Plaintiffs intestate while crossing
defendants track stopped at the end OF
detached caboose, which was In the
street short distance from the walk
While standing with his back to the
caboose and calling a dog, an engine
and car backed up against the stand
ing car with such force that 1t struck
the deceased, rolling him under the car
and injuring him 50 that he died next
day. Held: That the question of con-
tributory negligence should have beer
submitted to the jury, and that the
act of the defendant in striking the
car and backing 1t across the walk
without any warning was negligence.
The court further held that lone is not
required by the law to hurry across
track in front of a car standing de-
tached in public highway with moth
ing in his sight to indicate its imme-
date movement and no employe pres
ent to warn him Of an intended move
ment. When travellers for a legitimate
purpose stop on the sidewalk for few
seconds in front of detached car it
does not followthat they are ipso facto
guilty of negligence. Parties have the
| right to ASSUME that the railway COM
| pany Will givt them warning at such
| places before loving car in their d.
| rection."
! Davis VS.. NC. r. r. Co. Cd. L. N.
Vol. Il. page B3) (Mich.)
| INSURANCE POLICY.
The defendant, the Union Mutual
Life ms. Co., Issued a policy Of insur-
ance to the plintiff's intestate con-
tanning a proviion that the policy
should be "incoitestable from date OF
issue for any c,use, except non-pay-
ment of premiums In an action on
the policy the rial judge refused to
admit evidence IN behalf Of the COM
pany to show that the policy was is
sued in reliance upon material false
and fraudulent representations made
by the injured prior to it's issuance
''The supreme court set aside YER
dict rendered by the lower court In
favor of the plaintiff, and held that
such provision is contrary to public
policy and void, and that the insurer
in an action on the policy, may rely
on fraudulent representations prior to
the issuance Of the policy, notwfth-
standing that by the terms of the pol
icy the entire contract is contained In
1t and the application"
Reagan vs. Union Nut. Life ms Co.,
| 76 N. f. Rep. 217.