Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-02-27
3e~ee>1e~>~>%A
Elmportant Z
DUTY TO PAs,sEN

Duly III flASokoElNy
The plaintiff was a woH
three years old, and unaccus
travel. She approached the
or of one of the defendants pa
trains and informed him of her d
alton and route, and asked him
train was the proper one for he
board; the conductor replied,
madam, get on" and assisted her ID
board the train. After the train start
ed the conductor came thru the car.
and, after examining the PLAINTIFFS
ticket, informed her that she was on
the wrong train, and that she would
have to get off at the next station.
The passenger informed him that she
had relatives at a town farther on who
would assist her to reach her destlna-
| ton by another route and that she had
no money with which to pay her fare,
but he compelled her to get off at the
next station and wait until the next
returning train, where she had to wait
eleven hours. She was delayed twen-
| ty-four hours in reaching her destina-
| ton. during which time she was ex-
posed to humiliation, cold and hum
ger. The court charged the jury that
1t was the duty of the railroad con,-
pany to carry the passenger on to the
place where her relatives lived who
would or sent her to her home.
| The duty owed to the plaintiff was
| that high degree of care that a very
cautious and prudent person would
have exercised under the circumstan-
ces to prevent injury, Inconvenience
and delay.
st. Louis S. w. r. Co. VS.. Pruitt, 70
S. w. Rep. 59S, (Tex)
PHOTOGRAPH AS EVIDENCE.
A photograph of plaintiffs deceased
wife was offered in evidence and adj
mitted. The action was to recover for
pecuniary injuries resulting from dece-
dents death, the injuries are to be
compensated for on the basis Of the
momentary value Of the services of the
| deceased to her husband and children,
and into such case the personal ele-
ment does not enter, for the law does
not compensate for grief or sorrow.
but only in the actual pecuniary loss.
"The introduction in evidence of the
photograph of handsome woman
could not be expected to accomplish
any other result than to introduce the
personal element for the consideration
of the jury"
| Smith VS.. Lehigh Valley r. Co., 6S
N. E. Rep. 729, IN. "
FOR PERSONAL INJURY.
| Plaintiff was a passenger on a train
of defendant company and became
frightened; while in frightened con-
dition he was injured thru his own
actions. Held, that no recovery should
| be allowed for injuries resulting from
fright occasioned by negligence where
there is no immediate personal injury,
| trespass to real estate or some con-
| tract relation.
Moore VS.. Chesapeake etc., r. Co., "
S. w. Rep. 361 (Ky.)
LANDLORDS LIABILITY.
The plaintiff was tenant of defend
ant. on parol contract, from month to
month, at monthly rental, payable In
advance. Plaintiff discovered a crack
in the wall of the building which caus-
ed him to fear that it would fall. He
at once notified defendants agent,
who promised to have it attended to
the same day. AS the agent failed to
attend to it, plaintiff notified Defend
ant and told him that he would move
out if it were not fixed right away;
the defendant said that the plaintiff
had Deen a tenant 50 loHS lll1l nc sulu
not like to lose him and would have
the building fixed right away. The
matter was not attended to. A few
days thereafter the building fell caus-
ing destruction to some of plaintiffs
stock and furniture. Held, that the
mutual promises on the part OF the
tenant to remain and on the part Of
the landlord to repair, constituted
sufficient consideration.-Ehin VS..
BAIL, 81 Att. Rep. 572 (Pa.)