New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1915-06-16
IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

In the case of Gertrude Frasch against
the city OF New Ulm the Supreme Court
on Friday filed a decision affirming
Judge Olsen's order susta lining the
demurrer interposed by the city to the
complaint of Gertrude Frasch. This
was a test case, the City won out and
can not be forced to pay any damages
on account of the typhoid epidemic
which swept thru the city in january
and February, 1914.
It will be remembered that in Febru-
airy last year quite a number of people
became afflicted with typhoid fever
and it was claimed that the city water
was contaminated and that this msss the
proximate cause of the disease There.
Were ,28 cases in all, confined Ito Is:
families. Twenty-Five claims for dam
ages were filed with the city ranging
from $50 to over $1,000 each.
Under the laws OF the state, no per-
son can maintain suit against "a city
for damages on account of illness or
injuries for which the city is to be held
liable unless within 80 days after. the
happening of the accident or beginning
OF illness proper notne is filed with the
city to the effect that the city is to be
held liable therefor. No notice of this
kind was filed by any of the claimants
'iand when saIt was started Che City
raised this point with the result that
the Supreme Court has now held that
this notice was a condition president to
the maintenance of "a suit to recover
damages.
The syllabus reads. as follows:
Service Of the written notice pre-
scribed by Sec. 1856, C. S. 1913, is a
condition precedent to the maintenance
Il of suit to recover damages frocn.a city
on account of an illness contracted from
the use of contaminated water supplied
F.: from the waterworks owned and operated
by the city.
The statute is not an arbitrary dis
elimination in favor of municipalities
owning and maintaining public utilities
as against private parties carrying on
similar enterprises and is not violative
oflany constitutional provision"
Another decision filed the same day
which is of general interest is that of
the State againstthe Great Northern
Railway company which holds that
unless public necessity demands it, the
operation of Sunday trains i'm Mime
sofa cannot be made compulsory. Fur
Their. railroad companies in refusing to
operate such are within their rights and
the statutes covering Sunday labor.
With this as its viewpoint, the SUI
pren1e court has affirmed the findings
of the Ramsey county district court
in the case of the state against the
Great Northern Railway company, and
as result the withdrawal of Sunday
trains on the Great Northern between
Grand Forks and Duluth by the Great
Northern railway is held to be proper
and legal. The company, which operates
two trains daily between the cities
named, Withdrew one of its Sunday
trains after Is years of continual service.
This caused "a protest from the was
affected and the matter finally landed in
the Courts.
In considering the question of Sunday
service as applied to the trains operating
between Grand Forks and Duluth,
the Supreme court in it's findings passes
up those points made by Judge Dickson
OF the lower court in overruling the
order and establishes point of its own.
This point is that of Sunday labor alone,
and in passing on it, the court holds that
it alone is the underlying question.
"The compulsion Of Sunday labor
and the operation Of Sunday local pas
senger trains,' the Supreme court says.
lis contrary to the legislative policy
of the state and while under some cir
cumstances the operation of such may
be made compulsory, under the facts
of this case the judgment of the trial
court holding this order to be unreason-
able and void must be sustained"
Commenting on the statutes relating
to Sunday labor, the court says they
are very explicit and the only exception
is in case Of necessity, or charity. There
fore, if Sunday trains are to be operated,
necessity must be shown. This, the
court fails to find was indicated in the
case Of the train between Grand Forks
and Duluth. -. I. sss.Ts
III =