The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976, 1908-12-17

into MS frOck-cOat.
"Actually!"- replied Emeric Hull
me- Beaman in Sketch.
RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS.
The signal of a fiagman to cross is
| held, in Union p. r. Co. VS.. Rosewater
| &C.. G. Al 157 Fed. 1853, 10 L. r. A.
! IN. S. sos, not to relieve one from the
duty to look and listen before driving
| upon a crossing
One whose passage to, a station to take
| a train is obstructed for ain unreasonable
time by standing cars is held, in Louis
vile 81 n. RICO. VS.. Daugherty, 80 Ky.
Il. Rep. 1892, 10S S!iW. 1856, Is Il. r. A.
| (N.l s. 40, to be entitled to recover from
| the railroad for injuries caused by eX-
| posture to inclement weather
| A consignor of shipment over con-
Meeting lines is held, in Wente VS.. Chi
cago B. & Q. r. Co. (Neb.) 115 n. w.
$50, 10 L. r. A. IN. S. 756, to have the
right, upon the arrival of the shipment
of the charges of the first carrier, to de-
| mand redelivery of the shipment
| That a railroad company is answerable
to it's passengers in the same degree for
the safe condition of the cars of other
companies used in its trains as for its
own, is held in Morgan VS.. Chesapeake
l.. r. A. On. S. 100, Notwithstanding
| it is required by law to take cars of con.
| Meeting carriers and haul them on equal
| terms with its own.
| Failure to adjust ventilators ON cars
| in which fruit is shipped, resulting in
| the freezing of the fruit, is held, in
| (Ky.) 1O6 S. w. 1883, 10 l.. r. A. On. 81
| sol, not to render the carrier liable,
| where there is a well known custom not
| to change the ventilators unless instruct
| ed by the shipper.
| Imposing a reasonable penalty upon a
| carrier for failure to settle claim for
/ goods lost while in its possession for in
| terstate transportation is held, in Morris
| rs. Southern EXP. Co. 146 n. c. 167, 80
! S. e. 667, Is L. r. A. IN. S. 9S3, not
unlawfully to interfere with interstate
| commerce. in the absence of any congress
| sional legislation to the contrary.
| A state statute imposing a liability of
| 81 a day upon each car for delay i'll
| furnishing freight cars ordered, and per-
| hitting no excuse therefor except
strikes, unavoidable accidents, and 9th
son VS.. Missouri Pacific Coal Co. (Kan)
| "a Pac. 1873. Is l.. r. A. On. 81 1873, to
| be a reasonable police regulation, lmpos-
| Ing no considerable burden upon inter-
| state commerce.
That a city may, by force, resist the
| unauthorized construction OF street rail-
way tracks upon its streets, IS held III
| Los Angeles L. Co. VS.. Los Angeles
Call 90 Pac. 400, Is Ira (N.S) 1863.
| Whether failure to look and listen be-
| fore attempting to cross an interurban
street car track laid along the public
highway is negligence is held, in Chicago
& J. Electric r. Co. VS.. Wanic, go III.
$50. 50 N. e. S21, Is Ira. (N.S) 1857,
to be question for the jury.
One who slips and falls upon street
crossing rendered slippery by oil ap-
piled by trolley company to its tracks
| Slater VS.. North Jersey Street X. Co
| IN. J. Err. & App SO Att. 163, 10 L.
RIA. CN.S.) $40, to be entitled to recover
| for injuries received
One engaged in unloading wagon
with his body in the path of passing
street cars, and who for five or ten mn
utes fails to look or listen for an ap'
preaching car, is held in Volosko vs.
50 n. e. 1890, Is Ira. (N.S) l1lI
to be negligent as a matter of law.
That person may be found not &c
have become a passenger on a stree'
car where, having swung himself onto
the step while the car was IN motion
! the conductor refused to accept MN as
a passenger unless he got inside, IS helc
in. Hogner VS.. Boston Eiey. r. N 20 3 :
| (Mass.) 81 y. E. 464, 10 Liza. (N.o.,
$50.
'Baling of hay by a purchaser agreeing
| to pay a certain price per ton Tor nay
and do the baling is held, in briggs vs.
Bush OIich) 115 NV. 9S5, 70 Liza
(N.S.) 654, to be sufficient part paymen,,
to take the contract out of the statute OF
| frauds.
Failure to enclose the elevator on
which an employee was injured by the
| falling of barrel from an adjoining ele
vator operated in the same enclosed shaf'
is held, in Fowler Packing Co. vs. En-
zenperger QIan) "a Pac. 995, 10 Liza
| N.S.) 7S4, to be prima facie evldetlce
! of negligence, within the meaning OF q
factory act requiring owners or opera
tors of manufacturing establishments
properly and substantially to inclose OF
secure elevators, etc.
The negligent failure of telephone
company to summon an addressee to re-
ceive long-distance message offering
employment is held, in Mcleod VS.. Pa
cific States Teleph & Teleg. Co. or
"a Pac. 56S, Is Ira. (N.S.) 80, to
render the company liable for the loss
| thereby occasioned.
The destruction of bridge by ex-
traordinary flood is held, in Mitchell VS..
Weston (Miss.) 45 So. 81, 10 L.R: A.
| (N.S.) 1873, to be within the obligation
of a bond requiring the builder to replace
| it if removed from any cause, fire ex-
cepted, within a certain period.
An attempt by municipal corporation