Smith v. City of Pella
| Decision Date | 11 October 1892 |
| Citation | 53 N.W. 226,86 Iowa 236 |
| Parties | SMITH v. CITY OF PELLA. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Marion county; J. H. HENDERSON, Judge.
Action to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's intestate, resulting in his death, alleged to have been caused by his being thrown violently forward while walking upon one of defendant's public sidewalks by reason of a loose board therein being tipped up by a person walking in the opposite direction. It is charged that defendant was negligent in constructing said walk of boards lying crosswise upon two stringers, instead of three, as required by one of its ordinances, and in permitting said walk to become and remain out of repair, and the boards thereon loose, and liable to be tipped up and displaced. Defendant answered, denying the allegations of negligence. The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict for plaintiff for $700, with answers to certain special findings, returned. Judgment was entered upon the verdict. Defendant appeals.George W. Crozier and Hays Bros., for appellant.
Kauffman & Guernsey and Earl & Prouty, for appellee.
1. Appellee contends that the evidence was not properly preserved and identified. The evidence was taken in shorthand, and the shorthand notes and the translation thereof duly certified and filed. The documentary evidence was duly identified in the notes of the evidence. The bill of exceptions is in form commonly known as a “skeleton bill.” After the usual caption, it reads as follows: “Here the clerk will insert the shorthand notes of the shorthand reporter, on file in this case, and the translation thereof, and copy and insert in full all the evidence of all the witnesses, and exhibits offered in evidence and referred to in said reporter's notes, including all of ordinance No. 22 of the city of Pella, Iowa, and all objections to the testimony made on the trial of the cause, and the rulings of the court thereon, and the exceptions thereto.” Following this are similar directions as to special interrogatories and instructions. Code, § 2834, provides that the bill “need not include therein, spread out at length, any writing filed in court, but may incorporate the same by any unmistakable reference thereto; and the clerk, in making a transcript of the bill of exceptions, shall write therein at length all such writing included therein by reference.” This evidence, oral and documentary, was preserved and identified by the duly-certified and filed notes of the reporter, and is “unmistakably” referred to in this bill of exceptions. See Wilson v. First Presbyterian Church, 60 Iowa, 112, 14 N. W. Rep. 138, and Miller's notes to said section.
2. Appellant complains of certain rulings of the court upon the introduction of evidence. Plaintiff was permitted to introduce in evidence, over defendant's objection, an ordinance of the defendant city, prescribing the manner in which sidewalks should be constructed, and the court instructed with reference thereto as follows: It is alleged in the petition “that said sidewalk was not only at and prior to said date in a dangerous condition, but was defective in its original construction; that it was constructed of boards lying crosswise upon two stringers lying lengthwise, while the ordinance of said city required that walks of that character should have three stringers.” The negligence in construction here charged is that but two stringers were used where care required three, and not that...
To continue reading
Request your trial