The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-02-19

/. The fees required of candidates
for nomination for county Office by
section 4, chapter 109, laws of 1907,
being / per cent of the salary, and the
amount thereof bearing no relation TO
the services performed by the auditor
in filing petitions to have the names
placed upon the primary election bali
lot, such requirement is invalid. 1t is
also invalid for the cas- that 1t at
taches a qualification to candidates for
Office, and to voters. not permitted by
the constitution.
2. Whether the primary election is
an election within the meaning OF that
word as used in the constitution, and
as held in Johnson v. Grand Forks
County, is N. D.. 363. is not decided.
(Syllabus by the court.l
Appeal from the judgment of the
district court Of Grand Forks county.
Templeton, j.
Affirmed.
o. b. Burtness, states attorney, for
appellants; Feetham & Elton, for re-
%spondent.
Opinion by Spalding. c. j.
E. Galehouse, plaintiff and respond
ent, VS.. Minneapolis, st. Paul & Sault
Ste. Marie Railway Co, a corporation,
defendant and appellant.
1. An endorsement stamped by
means of a rubber stamp on the back
of a and complaint, Of the
words I'm Sheriff's office. Dec. 2, 1908,
John ]. Lee, Sheriff, Ward County,"
will, under Sec. 2403, of the Codes of
1905, which makes it the duty of the
sheriff to endorse upon all notices
and processes received by him for
service, the year, month, day, hour and
minute Of reception" and under Sec.
1917 of the Code, which provides that
"the presumption that official duty
has been regularly performed is salts
factory if uncontradicted" will be
deemed satisfactory evidence of the
facts therein contained, and that the
summons and complaint were deliv-
cred to the sheriff for service upon the
day stated, in the absence of satisa
factory proof to the contrary.
2. A person is not a passenger and
entitled to consideration n protec-
ton as such who, after waiting all day
in a station for a train and discover
ing that he will be unable to reach his
destination in time for the accomplish
Inent of the purpose of his journey,
leaves the station and goes to a hotel
for supper, and hen returns to such
station for the purpose of sending a
telegram announcing the fact that he
will be unable to make the journey,
and that 1t is his intention not to
attempt to do so.
8. The mere fact that an employe
is authorized to preserve order upon
the premises of his employer, does not
make an assault committed by him
upon a patron of his employer an act
done within the scope of his authority,
for which his employer will be liable
when the evidence shows that the as
sau1t was no made for the purpose
of preserving order or ejecting such
of such authority.
4. When there is a conflict in the
evidence, but the testimony of the
plaintiffs witnesses, il believed, would
justify the jury in finding that a COM
mon carrier Of telegraphic messages
has neglected to promptly deliver a
death message to the plaintiff, so that
plaintiff has been unable to take a
train by which he could have reached
the home of the deceased in time for
the funeral, and the plaintiff, after
waiting all day in the station for a
later train, and then finding that he
would be unable to reach his destin-
alton in time, went to the telegraph
Office to e a message announcing
the fact, and, on being informed that
the wires were down and such mes
sage could not be sent, complained be-
cause of the failure of the company to
deliver the message promptly in the
morning, and, on account of such pro-
test, was assaulted by the telegraph
operator, the common carrier of tele-
graphic messages nay be held re-
sponsible for such assault and liable
in damages therefor.
5. If, however, after going to the
depot for the purpose Of sending the
message, and after being informed that
such message could no be sent on ac~
count of the fact that the wires were
4 $500 - S..-.. - N-..-