Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1909-06-29
SUPREME
COURT
OPINIONS

The following opinions we're hand.
ed down by the supreme court this
morning:
The German Saving & Loan Socie
ty, respondents, vs. G. w. Gordon,
appellant; appealed from the circuit
court of Multnomah county; @. U.
Gantenbein, Judge; Judgment of the
lower court affirmed; opinion by
Chief Justice Moore.
Annie Q. Hough, ct al, plaintiffs
and respondents, VS.. S. A. d. Porter,
el al, defendants and appellants and
George Dierand, ct al, defendants
an respondents. This is a suit in
volving water rights and tide land
claims in the north end of the state,
and the matter was appealed to the
supreme court on petition for re-
hearing. The higher court holds, in
an opinion written by Commission
ers King and Bakin, that the petit
tion shomld be and is denied, and that
Porter's judgment against Small for
costs and disbursements are limited
TO those incurred in the supreme
court. The opinion is exhaustive,
covering "a pages Of typewriter pa
per.
o. n hubHtllt IL OI
the estate OF J. Donald Russell, de-
ceased, respondent. VS.. The Oregon
Railroad & Navigation Company, ap-
pellants; appealed from the circuit
court of Union county, r. II. Craw-
ford, Judge; reversed and remanded;
opinion by Justice Mcbride. This IL
a case wherein the respondents were
given damages against the railroad
company In the sum OF $500 as the
result ~ the respondents boy OF 1S
years being run down and killed by
one OF the company's trains at Per-
~, Oregon, and from which iudge-
ment the appeal Is taken. In the
lower courts the railroad company
was said 10 be negligent in the oper-
alton OF their trains over n crossing
which was alleged to be a blind
crossing" and the following reasons
were introduced why the company
neglected TO care properly for the |
safety OF the public crossing the said
blind crossing: First, the company
did not provide n full train crew for |
the handling OF their trains; second. |
that they did not reduce their speed /
upon the arrival nj the crossing TO NJ |
least three miles an hour: third |
that they did not sound danger bell |
or whistle at the time OF the acci- |
dent; fourth, that a watchman or
some mechanical safety device was
not provided, In so far as the com |
pany did not provide watchman or
some other 'afety device whereby |
people could be informed as 10 the |
arrival OF a train, the supreme court
holds that they did not show negli- |
gence, owing TO the fact that there
no statute 20 compel them to install .
watchmen at crossing. In the evil
dence during the court trial Il was
shown that n sawmill and water fall
were in close proximity OF the cross
Ing. and that the noise from these
two places practically drowned out
the noise OF the train and whistle.
and, taking Into consideration that
the deceased was bmt child and
drove onto the track in front OF the
moving train. after repeated warn
ings from others, the railroad com
pany could not be held entirely re- !
sponsible for the accident. and, un-
der the circumstance showed no
negligence which would exceed that
shown by tho deceased at the time OF
the accident, and the decree OF the
lower court Is reversed and remand
ed.