The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1915-01-20
Court
ReyerSeS Order IN
SCnuIH-Duel Case
Evidence Lacking To Prove Negli-
gence on Part of Redwood County
Farmer" Says Justice Hallam
TEAM NOT A RUNAWAY
Schultz's Claim for Unpaid Wages
Allowed; More Evidence Needed
for New Trial

The supreme court has reversed the
order of Judge Olsen denying a new
trial in the Redwood county case of
Frank Schultz VS.. Lewis Duel, the
former a respondent and the latter
the appellant before the supreme
court. This case was tried before
Redwood county jury several months
ago, at which time Mr.. Schultz was
awarded verdict. The attorney for
Mr.. Duel made motion for new
trial and Judge Olsen entered an or
der denying the same. From this or
der an appeal was taken and the SUI
preme court, in reversing that order,
practically decides that the jury
should have returned a verdict for
Mr.. Duel. Sen. Frank Clague has been
Mr.. Duel's attorney throughout the
controversy.
The Evidence
| In the fall of 1912 Schultz was en-
ployed to husk standing corn on the
farm of Duel, Duel and his son work
ing with him at the time. Each huskel
had a team and wagon. Each huskel
husked two rows of corn at time
throwing the corn into the Wagon
which was moved along astride the
second empty row to the right. The
reins were fastened to the left side
of the wagon. One Sunday Afternoon
in December Schultz and young Due
each went out with team to husl
corn. Lewis Duel took another team
and followed. Young Duel was in thu
lead, Schultz coming along behint
him, and the elder Duel was abou
forty rods behind Schultz. The result
was that the team driven by the eide
Duel was astride one Of the row.
upon which Schultz was huskisg.
Soon after the elder Duel com
menced work, and while he was be
side the wagon, the team started t.
run, from some cause apparently un
known, and ran straight down thu
. corn row and over Schultz, causing
the injury complained of, and Duel
failing to make any kind of settle
ment with Schultz, the latter com
mencing the action.
Charge With Negligence
In reversing the order of Judg'
Olsen the supreme court, through tn
decision written by Mr.. Justice Hal
lam. states that Duel was under oh
LEGATION to use reasonable care no
to injure Schulz, and to use reason
able care to protect the safety of tn
plaintiff in which his employee wa
working. His failure to do this woul'
be negligence, but this unfortunat
accident was Duel negligent?
The custom followed by these PEG
pie in husking corn was the usual one
and no claim was made to the con
trary. The Sunday in question wa
cold and high wind was blowing
but no claim is made that there wa
any negligence on part of any of tn
three workers on this account. TIL
allegation of negligence against Due
was based on the claim that his team
was wild and unsafe and runawa,
team, and that Mr.. Duel knew o
this fact. The lower court instructe,
the jury that if this was found t
be the case Schultz was entitled t
damages. But the Supreme Cour
says that in it's review of the evidenc
there was nothing to show that tn
team driven by the elder Duel was
wild or socalled runaway pair, al
though there was some evidence t.
show that when Duel purchased tn
team in 1911 they were character
lied to outside parties, but not t.
Duel, by the then owner. as runaways
Team Not Vicious
In September of. 1911, after Duel ha,
made the purchase, the daughter 0
Mr.. Duel was driving the team hitche,
to hay rake. The ring came off on
end of the neck yoke, letting tn
tongue drop down, and the team raj
about one hundred feet to an EN-
bankment where they were stopped b,
the tongue of the rake running int
the ground. The girl kept her seat
hung on to the reins, and manage,
to recover control without assistance
The harness was not broken TIL
tongue of the rake was broken, blu
the rake was taken to the house an,
fixed up, the team was hitched agail
to the rake, and the same girl agail
drove them all through haying time