Case Name: BAILEY v. BENTON COUNTY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1910-11-01
Citations: 61 Or. 390
Docket Number: 
Parties: BAILEY v. BENTON COUNTY.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burnett took no part in this decision.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 390–395

Head Matter:
On motion to strike testimony from abstract decided November 1, 1910.
On the merits, submitted on briefs March 28, decided April 9, 1912.
BAILEY v. BENTON COUNTY.
[111 Pac. 376: 122 Pac. 755.]
Appeal and Error — Mistake in Abstract — Correction—Motion to Strike.
1. If there is a mistake in an abstract on appeal as to the evidence, it may be corrected by respondent’s filing an additional abstract, and until he does so a motion to strike such evidence from the abstract will not be granted.
Statutes — Title—Sufficiency.
2. Under Section 20, Article IV, Constitution of Oregon, providing that the subject of every act shall be expressed in its title, the title of Laws 1903. p. 262, entitled, “An act providing for the establishment of county roads, for the appointment of supervisors and for the levy and collection of road taxes,” etc., is sufficiently broad to include a provision embodied in Section 6375, L. O. L., defining the liability of counties for injuries to travelers on defective highways
Statutes — Title—Sufficiency.
3. Section 20, Article IV, Constitution of Oregon, providing that the subject of every act shall be expressed in its title, is not violated by a statute having various details properly germane to one general object, and, where all the' provisions of a statute relate directly or indirectly to the same subject, are naturally connected, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title, the provisions are valid.
Constitutional Law — Statutes—Validity—Presumptions.
4. Every reasonable doubt as to the validity of a statute must be resolved in favor of its constitutionality.
Bridges — Injuries From Defects — Liability.
5. Section 6375, L. O. L., authorizing a recovery for injuries to travelers on defective highways or bridges, imposes on a county the duty to absolutely discover and know the condition of its roads and bridges, and makes a failure to do so actionable negligence, and a traveler injured on a defective bridge who shows that he was lawfully traveling thereon, that he received an injury by reason of a defect therein, that his own negligence did not contribute to the injury, and that he was ignorant of the defect, may recover, and no diligence in inspection by county authorities will protect the county from liability.
From Polk: George H. Burnett, Judge.
Plaintiff and respondent files motion to strike certain testimony from defendant’s abstract on appeal.
Denied.
Mr. James K. Weatherford for the motion.
Mr. E. R. Bryson, Mr. W. S. McFadden and Mr. Oscar Hayter, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Moore.
This is a motion to strike from an abstract certain testimony, on the ground that it was not copied from the bill of exceptions. The transcript sent up contains a bill of exceptions showing that it was signed by the judge, and appended to the record is the certificate of the clerk, wherein he asserts that the transcript contains a full, complete and true copy of the bill of exceptions. An examination of the bill referred to reveals that it embraces the identical testimony assailed. If any mistake has been made in the appellant's abstract, the respondent can file an additional abstract and- have the record corrected. Rule 5 of the Supreme Court (50 Or. 572: 91 Pac. viii).
• Until an amendment has been made in the manner indicated, the motion should be denied; and it is ordered.
Motion Denied.
Decided April 9, 1912.