New Britain herald., 1916-08-25

in street grading work negugently al 1 lowed it to collide with a street car The conductor sustained a slight injury which later caused lOckjaw, resulting in his death. The trial court directed a l verdict for defendant on the ground that the act of the city employe was a governmental function.
 The Virginia Supreme Court of Ap- peals, in reversing the judgment of the lower court, Judge Harrison, deliver ing the opinion held: 'The weight of authority sustains the view that the work which the city was doing in the instant case was not of such a char acter as to exempt it from liability for the negligent acts of it's servants and employees. In grading and improving McDonough street the city was not dis charging a governmental function, but was merely performing a ministerial duty, which afforded 1t no immunity from liability for it's negligence"
 Turn-about is fair play-dog own- CT sued for injury to auto. We often hear of cases where some unfortunate car owner is called upon to pay dam ages for running over a dog which chanced to cross his path, so why not a suit gain the owner of a dog for any damages caused to automobile owner by it? In the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. the case of Tasker V. Arey 96 Atlantic Reporter, 737 ralses this point Easing his claim on a Statu- tory provision allowing recovery for damage done by dogs to person or his property, he asks recovery TOT h. juries to his autom obile, which vas thrown from the road by contact with the defendants dog.
 Upon a verdict in favor of the plain tiff, the defendant moves for new trial. Tn considering this question the per curiam opinion in part reads:
 "The plaintiff testified that, as he was driving his autom obile along the hiehway on the evening of August 2O, 1913, in exercise of reasonable care, the defendants dog suddenly jumped directly in front of my machine, and so quick I didn't have time to apply the brakes before it struck him. The hand wheel struck him and jacked the machine around across the ditch, blown out of the solid ledge, and tipped it over.'
 The motion for a new trial was overruled. it being held that there was sufficient evidence to support plain tiff's contention.
 Brakemen must control temper5 and fists A recent Iowa case seems to uphold the remark an elderly woman is presumed to have made to the eff
 
 to train our young men to be "civil brakemen" rather than civil engin- eers, since we have to deal more with the former, the latter being too far removed to cause trouble.
 It appears in this case (Fagg V. & St. l.. R. Co.,, 157 Reporter, 148) that enc Fagg, somewhat Tagged from an overload of alcoholic stimulants, boarded an M. & St. l.. train at Mar shalltown on his homeward journey f1n route some difficulty arose, and he got into an argument with the brakeman, whom he alleges very rude y pushed his (plaintiff's) head into l corner of the car, incidentally ca ressing him on the nose with we'll aimed fist. Upon being informed bv an attorney of his precarious rondi- ton, he brought a suit for damages and recovered $500, from which yer dict the defendant here appeals.
 After considering the appellants ar guments that the brakeman acted on his own behalf and not as a servant of the company, and that his actions were outside the scope of his author ty, Judge Deemer, in speaking of the m odern and better ruling in such ,ases, says in part: An al1-suff1cient reason for the modern rule is that q railway company as a carrier Of pas- sengers Is bound to the exercise of are to protect those who take car 'iage from assaults whether by strangers or others; and it Is no an- ;wer to say that the assault was com nitted by one without authority, even