The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-11-24
MENTAL ANGUISH DAMAGES
ALLOWED BY COMMISSION

ing a judgment secured by J. r. Ward
against railway company for the kill.
ing of some cattle the supreme court
commission holds that, in county
where the herd law is in force. it is er-
ror for the court to instruct the Jury
that is the duty of the employees of the
railways to exercise reasonable care to
discover animals on the track. In
such case, the court holds it is only
the duty of the employees of the road
to exercise reasonable care to avoid
injury to ANIMALS after they are dis
covered. The opinion is by Commits
sioner Rosser in supreme court COM
mission division No 2, and the case is
reversed and remanded to the district
court of Woodward county.
Division No. 2 of the commission
handed down about forty opinions
many of which, however involved tech
nical law questions.
That a woman when she proves
breach of promise to marry without
any fault on her part, can recover for
mental anguish, modification and loss
of health in addition to pecuniary dam
ages, was held by Commissioner Har-
rison in COZ nection with the case of
Robert s. Waddell VS.. Daisye Wallace
from the district court of Creek county.
which is affirmed. The woman sued
Waddell in the United States court of
the western district of Indian Territory
for S22520 damakes. The case was
transferred at statehood to the district
court of Creek county, where Miss
Wallace recovered $4,000 damages. The
court also holds that an action for
breach of promise may be maintained
even though the defendant was married
to another woman at the time if the
woman to whom he becomes engaged is
ignorant of that fact.
The commission holds, in an opin-
ion by Commissioner Brewer, that
where a passenger is elected from a
train, without fault on his part, and re-
covery is warranted by the evidence,
he may recover a reasonable sum for
insult an dinjured feelings even though
the conductor did not use violence and
was without blame in the premises
The case is that of the Frisco Railway
company VS.. Paul Yount from Conan
che county, where Yount recovered
firmed.
Holding that it is error to refuse a
new trial upon motion showing new
ly discovered evidence that would show
the injuries were less serious than
shown at the trial, the court reversed
and remanded the case from Tillman
county in which ]. S. Hurley recovered
$1,000 damages from the Frisco for in
juries alleged to have been received
while driving to a freight car placed
on the companys switch tracks.
In another case appealed by the
Frisco in which j. A. Piburn recovered
judgment for $1,000 in the district
court of Garfield county against the
railroad for injury to four carloads of
sheep shipped from Texline, Tex, to
Lamont Okla, the judgment of the
lower court is affirmed. Commissioner
Harrison holds that the United States
statute requiring the unloading for
rest, feed and water of live stock at
stated intervals during shipment gives
the shipper a cause of action if these
requirements are not complied with
which will lie in state court.
Under the laws in force in Indian
Territory a married woman could con-
vey title to her land the same as if
she We're single according to an opin-
ion by Commissioner Brewer in affirm
ing the case of Maratha Adkins VS..
Henry c. Arnold, ct al, from Hughes
county.
In affirming the case of E. P. Sulli-
van VS.. J. Standiffer ct al, from the
county court of Haskell county, Com
missioner Brewer holds that a motion
for continuance naccount of absence
of witnesses where no diligence was
shown in procuring such witnesses,
was properly overruled
In affirming the action of the dis
trict court of Jefferson county in throw
ing out of court upon demurrer, the ac-
ton for damages brought by Henry
Rogers against the Rock Island rail
way the commission holds that where
the plaintiff was standing in the middle
of the company's switch track at mid
night without invitation of the company
and the employees of the company had
no knowledge of his presence there,
such plaintiff was not entitled to re-
cover.
The action of the district court of
Muskogee county in DENYING an injunc-