Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the statute, embrace no technical meaning. 4. MASTER AND SERVANT 18 8*)-CONTRACTS They mean to maintain, to control, to carry

OF EMPLOYMENT-CONSTRUCTION-TERH OF

EMPLOYMENT. on, to display. The display of such a table

Where, under a contract of employment by one having authority over it, and the for one year from April 14, 1913, at $30 a week invitation or permission of the owner to use for the first six months, and $35 a week for the the table for gambling purposes, constitute second six months, the first week of services was a keeping and exhibiting within the meaning did not prevent the contract from going into

waived by agreement of both parties, the waiver of the law. Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 3 effect on April 14, 1913, and the first six months South. 711; Bibb v. State, 84 Ala. 13, 4 of employment ended on October 13, 1913, and South. 275; Commonwealth V. Colton; 74 the second six months on April 13, 1914. Mass. (8 Gray) 488.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and It is within the police power of the state Servant, Cent. Dig. $$ 8-10, '17; Dec. Dig. g

8.*] for the General Assembly to consider that the 5. MASTER AND SERVANT (8 30*)—DISMISSAL morals of the community are injured by the - JUSTIFICATION. keeping and exhibiting of gaming tables even Whether the dismissal of a person, employwhen their owners are not financially in- ed as manager of a department store, was justerested in the outcome of the games, and tified by anything done or omitted by him as

manager, may be determined with respect to that the morals of society are benefited by conditions shown to exist in the store for which restricting the opportunities of its members he was not responsible. to engage in gambling practices. This the [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and General Assembly has done by enacting that servant, Cent. Dig. $$ 30–36; Dec. Dig. 8

30.*] the keeping and exhibiting of such tables constitute a misdemeanor, without regard 6. MASTER AND SERVANT (8 53*)—PERFORM

ANCE OF SERVICES-DEGREE OF SKILL REto the owner thereof being "concerned in

QUIRED. interest" in the games or in profits derived In a contract of employment, and espefrom the use of the table.

cially in a contract by which the employé stipThe second provision is altogether different ulated to do all things for the best interests

The second provision is altogether different of the employer usually done by persons occufrom the first, and is obviously intended pying the position of manager of a department to reach beyond the person who actually store, a stipulation is implied that the employé keeps and exhibits a gaming table, to any is reasonably competent to perform the work person who “shall be a partner or concerned employé to'do the best he could in the service

undertaken; and it was not sufficient for the in interest in the keeping or exhibiting such he perfomed, if he did not do what was reasontable.” We are of opinion that the statute ably required of a man occupying the position contemplates two offenses, and that the in- undertaken by him. terest that determines the latter is no ma

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and terial ingredient of the former. The motion Servant, Cent. Dig. § 67; Dec. Dig. § 53.*]

7. MASTER AND SERVANT (8 56*)-PERFORMis refused.

ANCE OF SERVICES-DEGREE OF SKILL REUpon the subsequent failure of the state to

QUIRED. prove that the table was kept or exhibited by ment store, and who by his contract agreed to

A person employed as manager of a departthe defendant, the Attorney General entered a nolle prosequi.

serve the firm diligently and according to his best abilities, and generally do all things for

the best interest of the firm usually done by (5 Boyce, 233)

persons occupying such position, was only reCARROLL V. COHEN et al.

quired to substantially comply with the provi

sions of the contract; and if he was in fairly (Superior Court of Delaware. New Castle.

efficient May 21, 1914.)

manager, gave his whole time and all

of his ability to the business, and in good faith 1. COVENANT, ACTION OF ($ 3*)-SCOPE OF performed his duties to the best of his ability, REMEDY-ACTIONS ON SEALED CONTRACTS. and did not misconduct himself or otherwise

The action of covenant is a proper form of violate the provisions of the contract, there was action for the recovery of damages for the a substantial compliance, notwithstanding occabreach of a contract under seal.

sional mistakes which might have been made by [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Covenant, any competent manager. Action of, Cent. Dig. § 9; Dec. Dig. $ 3.*] [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and 2. CONTRACTS (8 176*)-CONSTRUCTION-QUES

Servant, Dec. Dig. & 56.*] TIONS OF LAW.

8. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 3*)-PERFORMThe meaning of a contract is a question of ANCE OF SERVICES-DEGREE OF SKILL RElaw.

QUIRED. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, A person employed as manager of a departCent. Dig. $$_767-770, 917, 956, '979, 1041, 1097, ment store, who by his contract agreed to 1825, Dec. Dig. § 176.*]

serve his employer diligently and according to 3. MASTER AND SERVANT (8 43*)—ACTIONS for the best interests of the employer usually

his best abilities, and generally to do all things FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT–QUESTIONS FOR | done by persons occupying such position, neiJURY.

In an action for breach of a contract of ther insured nor guaranteed the results of his employment, whether plaintiff had been guilty

work as manager. of conduct amounting to a breach of the stip

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Master and ulations of the contract, implied or expressed, Servant, Cent. 'Dig. $$ 2, 3; Dec. Dig. $ 3.*] justifying disniissal, was a question of fact for 9. MASTER AND SERVANT (8 30*)—DISMISSAL the jury.

- JUSTIFICATION. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and If a person employed as manager of a deServant, Cent. Dig. $$ 57, 58; Dec. Dig. $ 43.*|| partment store failed to do the things usually *For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

OF lows:

done by one engaged to do the work which he, by the defendants that the following contract agreed to do, or if he was not competent to do under seal was entered into by the parties to the work, or, being competent, did not exercise his ability and properly supervise the buying

the present action. and selling of the merchandise of the store, his

"Articles of agreement, made this twelfth dismissal before the expiration of his term of day of April, A. D. 1913, between Manuel Coemployment was justified, and he could not re- hen and Isaac B. Finkelstein, both of the city cover damages.

of Wilmington and state of Delaware, mer[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Master and chants and copartners under the firm name and Servant, Cent. Dig. 88 30–36; Dec. Dig. g style of Cohen & Finkelstein, of the one part, 30.*]

and William F. Carroll, of the city of Phila

delphia and state of Pennsylvania, of the other 10. MASTER AND SERVANT (8_40*) —ACTIONS part. The said parties mutually agree as fol

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE-BURDEN PROOF.

"1. The said William F. Carroll shall enter A person, suing for breach of a contract into the service of the said Cohen & Finkelof employment, must show by the preponder- stein as the manager of the retail department of ance of the evidence a substantial compliance the business of Cohen & Finkelstein as merwith the contract; and it then devolves upon chants at their place of business, Nos. 228 and the defendants to show a default justifying the 230 Market street, city of Wilmington, Deladischarge.

ware, for the period of one year from the four[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Master and teenth day of April, 1913, subject to the genServant, Cent. Dig. $8 47–49; Dec. Dig. g 40.*] eral control of said Cohen & Finkelstein. 11. EVIDENCE (8 588*)-PROVINCE OF JURY

"2. The said William F. Carroll shall devote CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

the whole of his time, attention and energies Where the evidence is conflicting, the jury to the performance of his duties as such manashould reconcile it, if possible; but, if they ger of said retail department, and shall not, cannot, they should accept as true that evidence either directly or indirectly, alone or in partwhich they deem worthy of credit, and reject nership, be connected with or concerned in any that deemed unworthy, having due regard to the other business or pursuit whatsoever during the opportunity and capacity of the witnesses to said term of one year. know that of which they speak, and their ap

"3. The said William F. Carroll shall, subject parent fairness or bias.

to the control of the said firm of Cohen & Fin[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Evidence, partment of the business of said Cohen & Fin

kelstein, take entire charge of the retail deCent. Dig. 8 2347; Dec. Dig. § 588.*]

kelstein herein mentioned, he shall exercise su12. MASTER AND SERVANT (8_41*)-WRONGFUL pervision over the whole of the said retail deDISCHARGE–MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

partment of said business, shall employ such An employé, wrongfully discharged before help as may be necessary and desirable, shall the expiration of his term of employment, is serve said firm diligently and according to his entitled to recover the agreed wages for the best abilities in all respects, and shall generally unexpired portion of the term of employment, do all things for the best interest of said firm less the amount which he has earned, or by that are usually done by persons occupying such reasonable effort might have earned, in other position as manager. employment during such unexpired term.

“4. The salary of the said William F. Carroll [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and shall be the sum of thirty dollars ($30) per Servant, Cent. Dig. 88 12, 50-53; Dec. Dig. week for the first six months, payable by the § 41.*]

said firm weekly from the commencement of the Action by William F. Carroll against Man- said, service, and thirty-five dollars ($35) per

week for the second six months, payable weekly uel Cohen and another, now or late trading in like manner from the commencement of such as Cohen & Finkelstein. Verdict for plain- second six months: Provided however, that if tiff.

the services of the said William F. Carroll shall

be found to be entirely satisfactory to the said Argued before WOOLLEY and RICE, JJ. firm of Cohen & Finkelstein, the said William Charles F. Curley, of Wilmington, for F. Carroll shall be paid for his services at the

rate of forty dollars ($10) per week for the plaintiff. Daniel 0. Hastings, of Wilmington, second six months of the term of one year, for defendant.

herein mentioned.

"5. If the said William F. Carroll shall be Action of covenant (No. - September neglectful of the interest of the said firm of

Cohen & Finkelstein or shall manage the busiterm, 1913), to recover balance alleged to be ness under his supervision badly or in an imdue on a written contraet entered into be- proper way, or shall misconduct himself, the tween the

the plaintiff and the defendants, said Cohen & Finkelstein may at their option whereby plaintiff was to perform the duties terminate this agreement and such service as

manager upon two weeks' notice to the said of manager of the store of the defendants for William F. Carroll; and, further provided, a period of one year from the 14th day of that the said William F. Carroll may terminate April, 1913, to the 14th day of April, 1914, at his service upon two weeks' notice to the said

Cohen & Finkelstein." a salary payable monthly as stipulated in the contract. Verdict for plaintiff.

This contract was duly executed by the The facts and contentions of the parties parties under their seal respectively. appear in the charge of the court.

There is no contention that the contract

was induced by fraud of either party. RICE, J. (charging the jury). [1] Gentle The plaintiff claims pursuant to the terms men of the jury: The action is one of cove of the contract he entered the employ of the nant and the form of the action is a proper defendant firm on April 21, 1913, as manager one to bring for the recovery of damages for of the retail department of their business, the breach of a contract under seal.

and on the 18th day of August the same It is claimed by the plaintiff and admitted year he was dismissed by the firm, and there*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

after prevented from performing his con-, will say to you that the first six months tractual duties. These facts are admitted of employment ended on the 13th day of by the defendants.

October, the same year, and the second six The further claim is made by the plaintiff months ended on the 13th day of April, the that he faithfully, fully and in a competent year following. manner performed all his covenants contain [5] The question for the determination of ed in the contract of employment, and that the jury is whether or not the defendants' his dismissal was without justification or discharge of the plaintiff from their employ, legal reason on the part of the defendants, prior to the expiration of the time of enand by the defendants' action he suffered ployment named in the contract, was justidamages in an amount equal to his wages fied by the omission on the plaintiff's part of for the unexpired term of the contract, less anything he should have done, or by the such amounts as he was reasonably able commission by him of anything he should to earn, during that time. In support of his not have done, as manager under the conclaim for damages the plaintiff testified that tract, of the defendants' retail business. The he earned $15 a week from September 17th plaintiff's conduct in this regard is to be deto October 26th and from November 10th to termined with respect to conditions shown the present time he earned $62 a month. by the evidence to have existed in the de

The defendants dispute these claims of the fendants' store, for which he was not replaintiff, and contend that William F. Car- sponsible. roll, the plaintiff did not perform his duties [6] There is an implied stipulation in conas manager in a competent manner, and he tracts, like the one now under consideration, failed to efficiently do those things usually that the servant is reasonably competent to done by persons occupying such position as perform the work undertaken by him, and manager, and generally his conduct of the in this agreement it is expressly provided business was of such a nature that it amount that the plaintiff “shall generally do all ed to a breach, on his part, of the provisions things for the best interests of said firm that of the contract, also that he misconducted are usually done by persons occupying such himself, and therefore they were justified in position as manager." It is not therefore dismissing the plaintiff from their employ sufficient for the plaintiff to merely show and thereafter discontinuning his services. that he did the best he could in the service

The defendants also contend that under he performed. He must show that he did the terms of the contract they were the ex- what was reasonably required of a man occlusive and final judges of the efficiency of cupying the position undertaken by him. the plaintiff and the satisfactory nature of [7,8] Plaintiff must show a substantial the work performed by him in their services, compliance with all the provisions of his and whether they should continue him in contract, and an occasional mistake which their employ was optional with the defend might have been made by any competent ants.

manager of such a business is not inconsist[2] The meaning of a contract is a question ent with a substantial compliance; and if of law, and it is necessary for us to con- you believe from the evidence that the plainstrue the terms of the contract to an extent tiff was a fairly efficient manager, within necessary for the jury to understand it. the contemplation of the contract, and he

[3] The agreement entered into by the gave his whole time and all of his ability to plaintiff and defendants was a legal contract. the conduct of the defendants' retail busiUnder its terms the plaintiff covenanted to ness as the manager thereof, and in good perform certain services for the defendants faith performed his duties to the best of his and it was incumbent on him to do his work ability in behalf of the defendants' interests, in the manner stipulated. For the defend- and during the said term of employment did ants to justify the dismissal the plaintiff not misconduct himself and did not otherwise must have been guilty of such conduct as violate the provisions of his contract, your would amount to a breach of his stipulations verdict should be in favor of the plaintiff. either implied or expressed, and whether On the other hand, mistakes made by their action was justified under the terms plaintiff in the performance of his duties, of of this contract, is a question of fact for a nature that would substantially affect the the jury to determine.

business of the defendant, is evidence to jus[4] The contract called for the plaintiff to tify the dismissal of the plaintiff by the deassume his duties on April 14, 1913, but by fendants. However, the plaintiff neither inagreement of both parties the first week of sured nor guaranteed the results of his work services were waived, but this waiver did not as manager of the business. prevent the contract from going into effect [9] If you should find from the evidence on April 14th.

that the plaintiff was incompetent or was The contract was for a period of one year negligent, or managed the business of the defrom the 14th day of April, 1913, and for fendants badly or in an improper way, or if the first six months the plaintiff was to re- he misconducted himself while in their emceive a certain weekly wage and for the ploy, or if the plaintiff failed to do the things second six months the amount of his wages usually done by one engaged to do the work was to be increased. In this connection we he agreed to do, or if you believe from the

evidence that the plaintiff was not compe Levin Irving Handy, of Wilmington, for tent to do the work he contracted to do, or appellant. Armon D. Chaytor, Jr., Deputy being competent he did not exercise his abil. Atty. Gen., for the State. ity and properly supervise the buying and selling of the merchandise of the store, your PENNEWILL, C. J. (delivering the opinverdict should be for the defendants.

ion of the court). In the above stated case [10] The contract in the present case is an information was filed by the state in the admitted by both parties to it, and for the following language: plaintiff to recover he must show, by the

September Term, 1914. preponderance of the evidence, a substantial New Castle County-ss.: compliance with its terms. It then devolves Josiah 0. Wolcott, Attorney General of the upon the defendants to show that by the de- state of Delaware, now here in the Court of fault of the plaintiff they were legally justi- General Sessions of the state of Delaware, now fied under the terms of the contract, in dis- at the September term of said court in the year

sitting in and for New Castle county aforesaid charging the plaintiff from their services. of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and

[11] Where the evidence is conflicting, as fourteen, information makes : it is in this case, you should reconcile it if dred in the county and state aforesaid, on the

That James Williams, late of Wilmington hunyou can; but if you cannot do so, you should ninth day of July in the year of our Lord one accept as true that part of it which you thousand nine hundred and fourteen, having deem worthy of credit, and reject that part been brought before the Honorable Harry P. you deem unworthy, having due regard to for the city of Wilmington, state of Delaware,

Joslyn, deputy city judge of the municipal court the opportunity and capacity of the wit- after arraignment, plea and hearing was by the nesses to know of that of which they speak, said the Honorable Harry P. Joslyn, deputy city and their apparent fairness or bias.

judge of the municipal court as aforesaid, ad[12] If you find for the plaintiff your ver- fifty dollars and the costs of the said prosecu

judged guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of dict should be for the amount of his wages, tion amounting to the sum of seven dollars and as contracted for, for, the unexpired portion eighty-five cents, and to be committed to the of the term of employment, less the amount | Workhouse for six months at labor at some suit

board of trustees of the New Castle County he has earned or might, by reasonable effort, able employment, eight hours each secular day, have earned in other employment during unless physically disabled, the said commitment such unexpired term.

commencing on the said 'ninth day of July in If you find for the defendants, your ver- dred and fourteen, and ending on the eighth day

the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundict should be simply for the defendants. of January in the year of our Lord one thouVerdict for plaintiff.

sand nine hundred and fifteen, on the charge in the said municipal court for the city of Wil

mington aforesaid of an assault and battery (5 Boyce, 240)

upon one Walter Johnson, in the city of WilWILLIAMS v. STATE.

mington aforesaid, the said municipal court for (Court of General Sessions of Delaware. New jurisdiction to hear and determine said charge.

the city of Wilmington then and there having Castle: Oct. 8, 1914.)

And afterwards, to wit, on the tenth day of 1. CRIMINAL LAW (8 1139*)-APPEAL-TRIAL July in the year of our Lord one thousand nine DE Novo—MOTION TO, QUASH INFORMATION. hundred and fourteen, the said James Williams

An information for assault and battery, did appeal from the judgment of the said mufiled in the Court of General Sessions on appeal nicipal court for the city of Wilmington aforefrom the municipal court, will not be quashed said to the Court of General Sessions of the because it states the result of the municipal state of Delaware sitting in and for New Castle court trial and the sentence imposed, although county, and entered into a recognizance, to the trial in the Court of General Sessions is de prosecute said appeal, as he is authorized to do novo, since the court, notwithstanding such by the statutes of the state of Delaware in statements, can prevent any statement of the such case made and provided. outcome of the trial below from reaching the Whereupon, in the said Court of General Sesjury.

sions of the state of Delaware in and for New [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Criminal Castle county Josiah O. Wolcott, Attorney GenLaw, Cent. Dig. $ 3000; Dec. Dig. $ 1139.*]

eral as aforesaid, information makes:

That James Williams, late of Wilmington 2. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 1139*)-APPEAL-TRIAL hundred in the county aforesaid, on the sixth DE Novo-REQUISITES OF INFORMATION. day of July in the year of our Lord one thou

On appeal to the Court of General Ses- sand nine hundred and fourteen, with force and sions from a municipal court, the fact that the arms at Wilmington hundred aforesaid in and sentence of the court below was such as to give upon one Walter Johnson, in the peace of God the Court of General Sessions jurisdiction of and of the said Walter Johnson did then and the appeal, under Const. art. 4, § 30, need not be there beat, wound and illtreat, and other wrongs alleged in the information, nor proved, since it to the said Walter Johnson then and there did, sufficiently appears from the transcript, which to the great damage of the said Walter Johnson, is a part of the record.

against the form of the act of the General As[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Criminal sembly in such case made and provided, and Law, Cent. Dig. $ 3000; Dec. Dig. § 1139.*] against the peace and dignity of the state.

Josiah O. Wolcott, James Williams was convicted of assault

Attorney General. and battery in the municipal court, and ap

Armon D. Chaytor, Jr., peals to the Court of General Sessions. On

Deputy Attorney General. motion to quash information. Overruled. [1] On behalf of the defendant, a motion

Argued before PENNEWILL, C. J., and is made to quash the information because it CONRAD, J.

contains a recital of the proceedings in the

*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

municipal court against the defendant, in- | Around the landing was a railing. One of these cluding his arrest, trial, conviction and sen rails was decayed at the post. Plaintiff went up tence. It is insisted that these facts, if prov- the barber, but to give him a drink from a bot,

the stairs to the shop, not for any business with ed, or made known to the jury, would be tle of whisky which he carried. As he started unfair and prejudicial to the defendant. It to return, plaintiff halted on the platform is also insisted that the trial in this court | he placed his hand on the 'defective rail, which

to talk with another man, and as he did so, upon information in appeal must be a trial gave way, and he was precipitated to the de novo, and that no reference can be made ground below and injured. Held, that plaintiff to the proceedings below any more than can

was not an invitee, but at most a licensee, to be in an appeal from a justice of the peace reasonable care to keep the premises in suitable

whom the landlord owed no duty to exercise in a civil suit.

condition. It is further insisted that, inasmuch as [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Landlord and the information contains averments respect- Tenant, Cent. Dig. $$ 668–674, 676–679; Dec. ing the proceedings below which can be nei. Dig. § 167.*] ther proved or made known to the jury, the

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, same should be quashed.

Androscoggin County, at Law.
It is true that upon such an information

Action by Bird A. Austin against Hattie the trial in this court is de novo, and that F. Baker. The court ordered a nonsuit, and no reference can be made here to the pro- plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overceedings in the municipal court where the ruled. defendant was tried. But it does not neces

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and CORsarily follow that the information is bad NISH, BIRD, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ. because it embodies such proceedings, for

L. B. Waldron, of Dexter, and McGillithe court will not permit the information to go to the jury, neither will they allow the cuddy & Morey, of Lewiston, for plaintiff. state to produce any evidence, or make any & Skelton, of Lewiston, for defendant.

Manson & Coolidge, of Pittsfield, and Newell statement, to the jury in regard to the proceedings below. [2] The Constitution of this state in giving

SAVAGE, C. J. [1] This case comes before jurisdiction to inferior courts in certain crim- this court on exceptions by the plaintiff to inal cases provides :

an order of nonsuit. The case as made up "That there shall be an appeal to the Court contains a part only of the evidence, such of General Sessions in all cases in which the part as the plaintiff has seen fit to have month, or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars.'printed. This being so, we might very prop

erly dismiss the exceptions.

When excepSection 30, art. 4.

tions are taken to an order of nonsuit, or to Because of such provision the state contends that the imposition of the sentence by the direction of a verdict, all of the evidence the municipal court is a fact that must be necessarily becomes a part of the case. Such averred in the information and proved at a ruling is based upon the entire evidence. the trial in order that the court may have And it cannot be determined that the ruling

was erroneous without an examination of all jurisdiction of the case.

the evidence. It may be that the errors In regard to this contention we say that such jurisdictional fact sufficiently appears complained of are cured by the evidence such jurisdictional fact sufficiently appears omitteid. It was so held in Bank v. Nickerfrom the transcript filed, which is a part of omitted. It was so held in Bank v. Nicker

son, 108 Me. 341, 80 Atl. 849. Though the the record in the case.

defendant has made the point, she has not The motion to quash the information is

absolutely insisted upon it. And we have refused.

thought best to examine the case on its

merits. (112 Me. 267)

[2] So much of the evidence as is reported AUSTIN V. BAKER.

shows that the defendant is the owner of (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Oct. 19, a two-story building in Hartland. All of the 1914.)

upper story was occupied by one Burton and 1._APPEAL AND ERROR ( 695*)-QUESTIONS used by him as a barber shop. ' He was a

REVIEWABLE NONSUIT RECORD Evi-tenant at will, under the defendant. The
DENCE.

Where exceptions are taken to an order of approach to the barber shop was by a flight nonsuit or to the direction of a verdict, all the of stairs on the outside of the building, at the evidence necessarily becomes a part of the case, top of wnich was a platform leading to the and must be included therein in order to en- j outside door of the shop. Around the plattitle the excepting party to review the ruling.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and form was a railing. One rail was decayed Error, Cent. Dig. $$ 2911–2914; Dec. Dig. $ and defective at the post. The plaintiff went 695.*]

up the stairs to the barber shop. He car2. LANDLORD AND TENANT (8 167*)-DEFEC-ried with him a bottle of whisky, from which TIVE PREMISES-INJURIES TO LICENSEES. he drank in a back room connected with the

Defendant owned a building the upper story barber shop, and he gave the barber a drink. of which he rented for a barber shop. The approach to the shop was by an outside flight of He then started to return. He halted upon stairs leading to a' landing at the outside door. , the platform to talk with another man. He

[ocr errors]

*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »