Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-01-25
s1@HH111@1@N~A@@H@e@@@@@%$
gImportant Decisions{
ARruIl,E, vt~S RIGHTS.

Plaintiff an architect, had prepared
plans and specifications for residence
watch were duly filed In public OF
ii5c as a step in furnishing the basis
On hich he was to receive compensa-
lor his work, he had published
his !. ork to the world and could have
no exclusive right in the design or its
reproduction, especially where the
plans and specifications were used In
the construction of building
and the building had been exposed to
the gaze of the public and had al
forded the architect the full value OF
his services, and it was further held
that if the plans had any value as
property after publication, such prop
erty right was vested in the owner Of
the building and not in the architect
Wright vs. Elsie, S3 N. Y. Supp. SS7
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff, a youth of seventeen years
of age. was employed by the defendant
company to operate rip-saw machine
a machine used for cutting out sldlng
from boards, etc. He was told by one
Smith, another employ of the com-
pany, that when the saw dust box be-
meath the saw became clogged with
saw dust, to take stick and clean IT
out Plaintiff took a short stick ABOUT
a foot long and attempted to clear the
saw dust from beneath the saw while
II was in motion. Plaintiff had two
fingers cut off and his hand otherwise
mangled. The negligence of the de-
PENDANT which ID charged and relied
upon is that the saw was not guarded
and that the plaintiff, who was eigh-
teen years of age at the time OF the
accident, was not instructed In his du-
ties and notified of the danger and
risk of his employment. Held that
the danger of cleaning out the saw
dust trough directly beneath and with
in seven inches Of a circular saw, was
apparent and that when an ernploye
attempted the work he assumed the
risk.
Martin. vs. The Detroit Lumber Co.,
D. L.. N. Vol. XII, Page 4S6.
PROPRIETOR OF nHDATER.
An action was brought by Wilbur
Horney against Nixon and thinner
man for an alleged wrong suffered
by him and his family in not getting
for theatrical performance in Phila-
ueLpnld. LII IllS opinion JuSllCe DIOWu
of the supreme court Of Pennsylvania,
says the entertainment Is always linn
tied to those whom he may agree to
admit to 1T, and there is no duty, as in
the case of a common carrier, to adj
NIT every one who may apply and be
willing to pay for a ticket The only
remedy is assumpsit for the breach Of
the contract.-Horney VS.. Nixon &
Zimmerman. Not reported yet.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.
Plaintiff consented to be treated by
Christian Science healer,
who failed, to effect cure. 1t was
held that plaintiff was precluded from
holding defendant liable In damages
for failure to cure, although that
method is illegal under the statutes OF
the state.-Spead VS.. Tonlinson, So L.
r. A. 1872 IN. HI
STRIKE = RAILROADS.
Plaintiff had purchased round-trip,
limited ticket from the defendant CONF
pany. Because of strike the COM
pany was unable to perform it's con-
tract to carry the plaintiff on his re-
turn journey within the time limited
on ticket Held that the strike did
not extend the time within which it
is bound to honor the ticket-Elliott
VS. Southern Pacific Co., 6S L. A. A.