The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1911-04-13


den handed down decision di- :
recting a verdict for the defend =
ant in the case Of John Zens as
administrator for the estate Of
Frank Covacz VS. the N. r. Al
lens Sons company. The court =
held that the evidence clearly in
Dictated contributory negligence
= and that the jury should return a
verdict for the defendant COM =
pany. Announcement Of an APP
peal was made. <
x \ X s
In one of the most important decis-
| ions ever handed down in the Circuit
court Of Kenosha county Judge Belden
this morning sought to fix the right of
an alien widow to recover damages for
the death Of her husband in the courts
Of Wisconsin when he handed down a
decision denying the motion for non
suit in the case of John Zens as admin
istrator of the estate Of Frank Coyacz
against the n r. Allen S Sons com
pany. The attorneys for the defen
dant company had expected the motion
to be granted and the decision of the
court came like bomb shell to their
plans. The decision if upheld by the
Supreme court will be of far reaching
influence in Wisconsin on account of the
vast number of aliens employed in this
state who have wives and others de-
pendent upon them residing in foreign
countries. The decision of the court
covers every point raised in the argu-
ment which was one Of the best ever
heard in the court here but the really
interesting portion of it to the mind of
the layman is included in the first few
paragraphs. Judge Belden reading his
decision from the bench said in part:
cit satisfactorily appears from the
proofs that plaintiff s intestate Covacz,
an Austrian, married, came to this state
in February, 1905, and March 20, before
the clerk Of the Circuit court of Ken
osha county, duly declared his inten-
ton to become a citizen of the United
States; that his wife did not accompany
him and has never been in this state or
country, but remained in Austria; that
he contributed toward her support by
sending money to her and that no sug-
gestion of lack of harmonious marital
relations existed; that he had once Wis
tied Austria after coming here; that
he was killed December 20, 1909, in de-
PENDANT S plant, and left his widow sur
viving him.
Defendant moves non-suit for the
reason that the widow is nonresident
alien and therefore not entitled to the
benefit conferred by sections 1855,
1886 R. S.
The statute in question provides that
the amount recovered on account of the
death shall belong to and be paid over
to the husband or widow of the deceas-
ed person, or if none such survive them
to certain specified blood relatives,
The statute is absolutely silent as to
residence or citizenship of the desie-
mated benefeiaries.
The Supreme court of Wisconsin has
interpreted and held that these sections
of the statutes do not give the non-resi-
dent relatives of one who is instantly
killed, or who dies without conscious
pain, a right of action for the loss sus-
tanned by reason of such death. The
court has never been asked to ruIe nm
on the situation here presented. Not
Withstanding the Interpretation placed
upon these statutes by our Supreme
court, have reached the conclusion
that it was not within the legislative
intention to bar a widow, under the
circumstances shown in this case. from
the benefits of this statute, and this
view obtains regardless of questions of
actual physical whereabouts, domicile
or citizenship of such widow, which 7
do not consider vital or, indeed import
ant. For the purposes of this case
however, it may be considered that the
residence and citizenship or quasi citi-
zenship of this widow are identical with
that of her deceased husband.
Surely it cannot have been the in.
tention of our law-making body to denv
widow or other person designated bv
the statute in question as a beneficiary
access to our courts and to deprive her
or them of the specified remedy merely
because of non-residence. Legislation
or judicial interpretation which FIXES
one standard of care for one emplover
IN providing the servant a safe place
to work and of.iability for such en-
ployer's negligence resulting in such
servant death, and different stand
ard for another employer, dependent
upon the residence of the designated
oeneficiaries of the deceased servant
IS, It seems to me, fundamentally I'm.
! ,.,,,,I