The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1914-04-02

i 1909, No. 31S, art. 10, subd. 81 proyid-
ing that the owner of an automobile
i shall be liable for any injury occa.
stoned by the negligent operation
4 thereof by any persons except where
Tit has been stolen, thereby rendering
the owner liable for injuries commot-
ted by one operating the machine re-
| CARELESS of whether he was acting
under direction of the owner. In the
case of Dapgherty v. Thomas, 40
| Northwestern Reporter, 615, the val:
idity or a portion of this act fs"at'
tackled Defendant owner had sent
his automobile to "a garage for repairs,
in the course OF which the employees
of the concern in taking the machine
out for a run in order to test 1t col
| lided with pedestrian, who thereupon
sought to, hold the owner liable for
| his injuries under the provision of the
above statute. AS the terms of the
act establishing the unqualified liza
bility of the owner were plain, the
trial court rendered judgment for
lplaintiff. The case went up on ap'
peal; the defendant successfully at.
lacking the constitutionaHty of the
aforementioned clause, claiming that
| il was in violation of the state Consti.
tuition providing that mo person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law"
the supreme court saying, in effect,
that these words were intended to Sc
cure the individual from the arbitrary
exercise OF the powers of government,
Iunrestrained by the established prin.
cipies of private right and distribu-
Tive Justice; that statutes passed
against the plain and obvious princi-
pies of common right and common
reason are null and void so far as
calculated to operate against those
principles.
Plaintiffs were abutting owners of
property on a city street. An electric
light company, for the purpose of IA
Icilitating the use and operation of its
lines and poles, sought to 50 trim as
to materially damage certain shade
trees bordering on the street in front
lof plaintiffs property. Suit was
brought for damages alleging depre-
citation of plaintiffs property because
of the impairment OF its use and en-
joyment resulting from the above de-
probation. The defense was inter-
posed that as the fee in the streets
belonged to the state, and as defend
ant company was quasi public cor
poration, plaintiffs had no rights
against the company that could inter
fere with any impairment of the trees
for its convenience The supreme
court of North -. Carolina, however,
while holding that municipal cor
poration which enjoys the possession
of its streets has absolute control
over, bordering trees providing that
no oppression is exercised impairlng
the rights OF abutting owners in their
easements in the shade of the trees,
set decided that this municipal power
Tof control was not delegable, and
could NOT he conferred upon even a
quasi public corporation, with the re-
suit that defendant, company was re-
quired to stand for apyrdamaGes re-
sulting Moore V. Carolina Power Il
Light Co., 70 Southeastern Reporter.
500. "a"
In a will contest it appeared that
the genuineness of testatOr's sigma
ture was in question. Certain depo-
sitions were sought to be introduced,
based on certain alleged photographs
of the signature, evidence Of such pho
tOgraphs, it seems, being very con
flicting as to their accuracy. In view
OF this fact the court excluded the de-
positions, saying that a photograph
itself cannot be introduced in evil
dence until it is shown that 1t Is
picture of the thing in question, and
is a fair, accurate and truthful repre-
sentation thereof In re Hayes Es'
tate 135 Pacific RepOrter 449