Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-04-03

GV0oOk1o I0OAAasS0 W OsDSASSs ie>OSSssSAO
ant cited provisicn Of the statute
providing that the court has powsr to
compel party to suit to allow dis
covery o. any article" or '.property"
in his possession relating to the merits
Of the action. but the court holds that
this does not apply to dead bodies, and
says: IT the article to be inspected
were piece Of machinery instead Of .
human body. the court, under the SEC
ton relied on, would not be warranted
In making an order permitting the ma
chinery to be taken apart. and Q part
Of it carried away for tho purpose OF
further examination. Much less would
the court be Justified In permitting an
autopsy on human body"
FELLOW SERVANTS. !,
One Maxi Erjauschek was employed
as maid in certain household, her
duty being, among other things. to look
after the lady of the house. Upon one
occasion. while 40 employed, she went
out for an automobile ride together
with her employer and his wife. BY
reason OF the chauneur's negligence,
the car ran into a tree, they were all
thrown out, and the maid was injured.
She sued and recovered. Defendant ap-
peals, the question involved for review
being whether the maid and the chauf-
fur were fellow servants. In the case,
entitled Erjauschek vs.. Kramer, 126
New York Supplement. page ESQ, the
New York supreme court holds that
the relationship of fellow servants ex-
listed, so that the maid assumed the
risk from the drivers negligent act
The court assumes that her presence in
the automobile was incident to her EN-.
Iployment, and her employment sub
jected her to the risk. The Judgment
was reversed and q new trial ordered.
UNDERTAKINGS
The question in Densmore vs.. Ever
green Camp, liz Pacific Reporter, 255.
Is whether an undertaking establish
ment is nuisance. It was shown that
the undertaken maintained every sani-
tary precaution known to the profess
sion and operated his establishment In
a legitimate manner. Plaintiffs. who
pray for an Injunction. complain that
noxious doors and gases, arising from
the deodorants used. will permeate
their homes, and that there is danger
of infection from the proximity Of the
morgue and the possibility of flies
passing from one place to the other.
The supreme court of Washington
holds that the establishment is not a
nuisance per Sc, but that it would be
manifestiy unfair to grant injunctive
relief only in cases where the object
was a nuisance per Sc, when other cir
cumstances Intervene which tend to
destroy repose and comfort. The court
says: I'm this case the element Of
comfort and repose in the enjoyment
Of the home becomes an essential ele-
ment Of our inquiry: for 1t is not only
shown by the evidence. but it may be
accepted as within the common knowl-
edge Of man. that the imm ediate pres
ence of those mute reminders Of NOR
tally. the hearse, the chapel. and TAX.
ing in and carrying out of bodies, the
knowledge that within a few feet of
where the family sleep and eat and
spend their leisure hours. autopsies are
going on. that the dead are there, can
not help but have depressing effect
upon the mind Of the average person,
weakening, as the testimony shows. his
physical resistance, and rendering him
more susceptible to contagion and dis
ease" An Injunction was allowed
CITY COUNCIL NOT LIABLE.
A case involving an extraordinary
complaint is that of Hodgson VS.. Moul-
ton. SO Northeastern Reporter. S5S The
plaintiffs grievance is that defendants
(the city counciD. having promised to
faithfully perform their duties, "have
substituted Partially. collision and an
archy and abridged plaintiffs consti-
tutiona! privileges and immunifies'
The following are some of the particu-
lars. Plaintiff filed a petition with the