| Show IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES r e Coall Decision in n Cue Case or of A J YS Vi J J Snell Court 40 1410 dt i fitt t tI r ij Ih 0 I w 41 I 1 f M IIII r f the Tb au COurt this Ibl afternoon e de eI I dO 41 l lit itt the ee ot ti 11 at lall ve J J I r Ta oftie o be beIS beloW loW IS if i all to Q let tills Uti to eft I estate tate and for lor 8 aoe dam dama a ot of I nt H bElow ow found that the t fence ee W buIlt or by th tb plaintiff and defend defendant ant tor In UI or IW iU a and d dI I as AI the agreed arted I OR also alo I Sat t the he fence lee w by plain Ut UtI I consent n and nd hAt will siIm Im for tor tam cas ills I ed but hit his title te Ie tile as I uld The TIte cot 01 0 tk jt Was th the two Jw sP ap apI I d that tI he wi o 0 some lUmp 41 HI i I well U tIC ii end the Supreme Court half hoi with lIh him bun The was written II by Chief Justices fIner and concurring CASE A Another opinion banded II late I thu th Ih judgment of DC the trial court In the ruse CHIC of oC Alma D vs VI the JUo Western ny fly company The action Will was dam iii pes for tor injury to an anti II lot for Injuries TIM lb r court cl plaintiff It bl If been n wn by th the OWl hIlt hi w was guilty ot of l Mg Inet The TM Supreme 4 no In tile the record hence hene Case Cuo ot or Ur ia H j it W No Cuno on TrIAl ro Judge JUllo Cherry Tb Fhe ogee eat of Dr Hector vs 1 W was R trial before tor berry and aad Q a J r JI tle tI tIltIl branch branc ot of the Third district todal Varlan rIAn APpeared for tor plaintiff and and Barrette BarNOt e for the The Tue notion lotton I Is to the sum Bum of for services rendered and Miss Fa Fay McCune Of If this Ihl amount 1100 is Ie claimed for tor Hr vices rendered to lu Mn Ir be between between tween the of August and January In supplying a 11 St Ht Of teeth the simS In the mouth and for tor material The sum eum of t Its 8 Is for lor Pay McCune in III hi his answer anwer the nip defendant aile alleles that the work Ik ot of and ADd lIt tilt the teeth tir Mrs trl McCun was so 80 I performed that the th teeth I apr ul useless and Ull I could nu not be worn or used ul l by hIe wife limo 1111 tI the work bet been n properly I the defendant III says It would not flay pAYI I been worth to exceed Thu I amount defendant sail ay he Ie olfert to but lh the doctor refused to no ne neI I it h The services rendered Mica FAr 1157 do de all wu was not worth to ex cx read tI flU but Joc ilce the commencement ot of th the action APril 3 1111 3 tb the defend defendant ant may he paid the Ill to Dr art wold woid bleh bieh was 1 accepted hr by the doe d Cl In full tull nt ot of the cause caUl 01 actIon Jetton or of dentists residing In City end anI Chicago formed ft a portion ot of th the testimony offered Gee Oeo or of Nebraska Cily a special lit It In pOl Is IH int to m says II hi he did the work f In halo IRID the models of Mrs upper and lower j jaw The models mOdIs h he further Sas RII when they hIm were the finest finst he ever saw a Dr Griswold VIII vas particular In the work done doneL ei L W Iv J Younger n a Chicago dentist says ara In hi his that In October 1503 hii a attention tIn lion was AI called to It a pI pies ter lit t of an upper and lower sail to to a prominent lad lady or of Salt lAke eit II And boUt about the dentures for tor whom Dr wu sn manifesting tv and solicitude Tb The work done b by Dr h he thinks was wa worth orth at least 1000 |
