The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-02-07
Courts Review Of Snider Case

man made misadventure OF his bust
ness relations? Is that something the
courts can remedy? Is that some thing
Tor which the father OF that boy must
respond in damages. Why, IL 1t is,
parent In this country is in q. very
unfortunate position, especially IL his
son does not do just what is right.
In this case II seemed that the parents
supplemented the lack OF support which
was given by this son, and ac-
cording to the evidence, put in
$500; $1,000 at first to start them of
and lost $4,000 more I'm the business.
Is that any evidence of an attempt on
the part Of the father to do this girl
a wrong?
Failed to Show Malice.
After March, 1909 must be the battles
ground Of this lawsuit. We are met in a
case OF this kind with what is known in
law as certain presumptions. Now,
that Is one place where jury is fire.
quently bothered. Presumption in a.
way Is an unfortunate word to use.
and some times men unfamiliar with
the English language, and very
frequently men who are perfectly fam
liar with 1t, do not understand ali the
words that are being used, and when
the court says to you, IF you find
certain facts there Is no presumption
which follows" can see how a jury
could be easily misled, and vet that
is the, technical method OF putting the
thought and about the only way you
can put 1t, 1t was incumbent upon
the part of this plaintiff to prove a
malicious intent. How was she going
to do that? 1t was incumbent upon
her to prove, first, certain facts. and
then we say as a mater of law, those
facts having been proved, the law will
presume or 1t will not presume a GER
tain intent Let me illustrate. Sup
pose person was charged with the
crime of murder and the murder was
committed under circumstances which
showed that it was heinous in it's ma
ture; that the man, the assailant. had
a dagger in his hand and that the
death had been caused by a dagger,
those facts being proved. the law pre-
sumes that that man intended to do
that act. You have to prove the intent
with which the act was done and the
only way you can do is to prove GER
IHAAA AaGLb tHAAu tIlGh say LflOS6
facts proved the law presumes that
a certain intent follows. And even
then all has not been said that can be
said, because that presumption might
be of such nature that 1t would be
known in law as a disputable pre-
and the person charged
could come into court and demonstrate
that Notwithstanding the fact he had a
weapon he did not intend to do what 1t
he did. So when we come
into case of this nature when the
question of presumptions and the
question of intent are involved, I am
not surprised that jurors frequently
cannot follow the instructions with
to the law as given by the
court.
+. Nothing to Warrant Verdict.
What are some of the facts that
were proved that occurred since March
1909 and upon which this plaintiff
must succeed If she succeeds at all?
Take the incident of the sons coming
from down in Michigan, UP to this
farm in North Dakota. What have
we? Why, we have a, man in Michi-
gan who was sick, who had had mis-
fortune in business had been at least
charged with a felony, advised trat
he had the consumption, with a family
on his hands to support, and living on
his father-in-iaw. To whom did he
naturally go under those circua-
stances for relief but the defendants
In this action, his parents? And they
said, why. come here. We will give
you a place on the farm" Now, where
was there anything wrong in that?
Where was there anything in that
that ought to require these parents
to pay this woman $4,000? And yet
that ts what the record is right In this
case. Take the incident with
reference to the fact that when this
woman was here she had to work.
Well now, let us look at the situation
before mentioning that incident Here
she comes. the wife of the son Of two
the husband and the wife,
located on farm In our community,
What would she be expected to do
under those circumstances In view of
the fact that the husband had agreed
that her services should be rendered
as well as his own. or course that
agreement wasn't binding on her, but
she came there under those curcun-
stances and would you expect that she
could sit in the parlor and take care
Of her children and do nothing else
and be cared for by these parents7 rs
that what you would ordinarily ex.
pect in the ordinary family? Take
the work she was required to do. What
is there in that that would warrant the
payment of $4,000 TO her. Take the
stove and file incident. Take the stove
incident first. Now the father, (and
put IL in the worst light) told the
woman to go make fire and bring in
some coal. There is no evidence that
he knew of her condition-not the
slightest. The evidence is all the other
way--that he did not know her con-
dition. And even II he did know her
condition, you as married men know
and as the fathers of children know
that frequently women in that condi-
ton have been known to dovery much
greater and harder service than that
of building a fire. But suppose, IL
you please, that he ought NOT to have
done it,: that he knew her condition
and that he ought not to have done IT..
Where Is there evidence that that act
alienated the affections OF the hus-
band from the wife? That is what
the plaintiff is trying to prove all the
time. Where lie the evidence that
that act took away one dollar of her
We must remember that this
action is not one against the defend
ant for abuse of the person. If the
defendants in this action committed
zapaa AFT against the nargnr of thia
plaintiff. why that action is not here
for trial now. Take the file incident
Simply the case. assuming that 1t was