페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

and that it is not open to the defendant to the rubbish that disfigured them, frono atassert that the means by which this was ac tempting to keep up an idea that their idea complished was force, rather than the usual was to collect damages for loss of service, arts and persuasions of the seducer. So, in when in fact that was never more than a Watson v. Watson, 53 Mich. 168, 18 N. W. | legal fiction. We are satisfied with the rea605, 51 Am. Rep. 111, in referring to this soning of the Supreme Court of California subject, it is said: "The plaintiff's evidence and are disposed to follow it. did not make out a rape. It made out only The judgment will be affirmed. that her will was overcome by the defendant's superior will, which had controlling GRANT, C. J., and BLAIR, J., concurred. influence because of the parental relation which he had assumed towards her. If the Plaintiff's declaration is as follows: "Lida case were in fact one of rape, there would Velthouse, mother of Fanny Velthouse, a be very good authority for holding that the minor of the age of 20 years, plaintiff in this action might be sustained notwithstanding suit, for and in behalf of her said minor the fact that the intercourse was accomplish daughter, Fanny Velthouse, the father of ed by force"-citing Kennedy V. Shea, 110 | the said Fanny being dead, by Farr & Son, Mass. 147, 14 Am. Rep. 584, and Lavery v. | her attorneys, comes into this court in and Crooke, 52 Wis. 612, 9 N. W. 599, 38 Am. | for the said Fanny Velthouse, and as her Rep. 768. The only case to which our atten mother in and by virtue of the provisions tion has been directed in which the precise of section 10,418 of the Compiled Laws of point bas been considered is the case of this state of 1897, and complains of Henry Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55, 32 Pac. 867, Alderink, defendant herein, of a plea of 35 Am. St. Rep. 144, in which the evidence trespass on the case: For that whereas, the from one viewpoint, indicated that the plain said defendant, contriving, and wrongfully, tiff lost consciousness from the effect of wine wickedly, and unjustly intending to injure at the time the act was committed, and it the said Fanny Velthouse, and to deprive her was said: “If this be so, the defendant was of the comfort, fellowship, society, and reguilty of rape, and, while it is held in those spect of her friends and relatives and of the states where seduction is a criminal offense community in which she lived, and to bring that proof of a rape will defeat a prosecution her into great discredit, dishonor, and disfor seduction (citing authorities), yet no case grace, and to ruin her good name and fame is found in the books where a party has in the community where she resided, herefailed to recover in damages for seduction tofore, to wit, on the 6th day of October, when the evidence at the trial disclosed the 1906, at the township of Allendale, in said defendant guilty of the more heinous offense county, violently and without the consent of of rape. Such a showing but aggravates the the said Fanny Velthouse seized her and injury, and furnishes ample ground for ex threw her upon the ground, and then and emplary damages. * * * It does not lie in there debauched and carnally knew her, the the mouth of the defendant to say: 'I am said Fanny Velthouse, and against her will, Dot liable to pay any damages in this action, whereby the said Fanny Velthouse became because the evidence discloses I did not se pregnant and sick with child, and so remainduce the plaintiff, but committed the atro ed and continued for a long space of time, to cious crime of rape.' * * * Where a par wit, for the space of nine months then next ent sues for seduction of his daughter, and following, at the expiration whereof, on, consequent loss of service, and it appears to wit, the 20th day of June, 1907, was dethat the intercourse was accomplished by | livered of the child with which she was so force, such a showing will not defeat the pregnant, as aforesaid, to wit, at the townaction, but will aggravate the injury. Fur- | ship of Allendale, at the time aforesaid, man v. Applegate, 23 N. J. Law, 28; Ken by means of which said several premises nedy y. Shea, 110 Mass. 147, 14 Am. Rep. the aforesaid Fanny Velthouse suffered great 584; White v. Murtland, 71 Ill. 250, 22 Am. and extreme pain, and experienced great Rep. 100. While the recovery of the parent suffering, and was greatly humiliated and is based upon a different principle from that disgraced, and was deprived of the comfort, involved where the female is the complain- fellowship, society, and respect of all her ant, yet we see no bad effect to follow an friends and relatives, and of the communapplication of the same rule in her case. ity in which she lived, and was ruined and Certainly, a court will not be astute in draw brought into great infamy and reproach, and ing fine distinctions from the evidence in order has been greatly injured and damnified by to discover a case of rape, if such fact would the premises, to the damage of the said Fandefeat a recovery. For the foregoing rea- | ny Velthouse of $10,000, and therefore this sons we conclude that, if plaintiff was uncon suit is brought in her behalf as aforesaid." scious from the effects of the wine at the To this defendant pleaded the general time defendant had intercourse with her, her issue, entitling his plea: "Fanny Velthouse v. cause of action was not defeated by reason Henry Alderink.” The issue was tried by a of such fact." As was stated in Stoudt v. jury, and the testimony of the plaintiff inShepherd, 73 Micb. 588, 41 N. W. 696, our troduced without objection. She testified. statutes have removed from such actions all in accordance with the averments of the declaration, that the intercourse was brought testimony is one of rape. I cannot asabout by force and without her consent. At sent to the proposition that rape is sethe conclusion of the case, defendant re duction, or that the statute intended to quested the court to direct a verdict in his cover the case of rape. There was no need favor upon the ground "that the action was for a statute in such a case, because the one on the case for seduction and brought | principles of the common law afforded under section 10,118 of the Compiled Laws ample remedy. And it may also be added of 1897; that to constitute seduction there that to cover the contingency of the testimust be a consent to the sexual intercourse mony proving a case of rape the pleader may by the woman; that the declaration alleged have two counts; one charging rape, and the intercourse to have been without the one seduction. Watson v. Watson, 49 Mich. consent of the plaintiff and against her will; 540, 14 N. W. 489. See, also, Bellant v. that the proof failed to show that plaintiff Brown, 78 Mich. 291, 44 N. W. 326. We are consented to the intercourse, but, on the con referred to many cases holding that the actrary, * * * that the sexual intercourse tion may be maintained, though the interbetween her and the defendant * * * course relied upon was accomplished by force was effected without her consent and against and violence. Kennedy v. Shea, 110 Mass. her will.” The court refused to give this 147, 14 Am. Rep. 581; Lavery v. Crooke, request and submitted the issue to the jury, 52 Wis. 612, 9 N. W, 599, 38 Am. Rep. 768 ; who rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor. Damon v. Moore, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 454. Each The refusal to give the foregoing request is of these cases were brought by a father to the only ground relied upon for reversal of recover compensation for damages resulting the judgment.

from his child being debauched. In those

cases, as stated in Kennedy v. Shea, supra: CARPENTER, J. (dissenting, after stating "The gist of the action is the debauching the facts as above). Can this suit be maintain of the daughter and the consequent supposed ed under section 10,418 of the Compiled Laws or actual loss of her services." In other of 1897? This suit is not the suit of Lida words, in those cases, it was not necessary to Velthouse, the mother. It is the suit of Fanny prove seduction. It is otherwise, however, herself to recover her damages, and Fanny in this case, where the seduced female herself is the real plaintiff, and it is so understood by brings the suit. In such cases, as we have defendant's counsel. In his brief it is stated: | held in Greenman v. O'Riley, 144 Mich. 331, “It is just the same as if the plaintiff (Fanny) | 108 N. W. 421, 115 Am. St. Rep. 466, a case had brought the action herself." Section of actual seduction must be established, and 10,418, Comp. Laws 1897, provides: "It shall by that is meant: "The act of persuading or not be necessary in any action on the case for inducing a woman of previous chaste characseduction hereafter to be brought, to allege in ter to depart from the path of virtue by the the declaration, or to prove on the trial, any use of any species of arts, persuasions, or loss of service in consequence of such se wiles, which are calculated to have, and do duction ; but if the female seduced be a minor have, that effect, and resulting in her ulat the time of the seduction, the action may timately submitting her person to the sexual be brought by her father, mother, or guard embraces of the person accused." ian; and if such female be of full age, the Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55, 32 Pac. 867, action may be brought by her father, or any | 35 Am. St. Rep. 144, is more nearly in point. other relative who shall be authorized by her There the seduced female herself brought the to bring the same." Before this statute was action. The testimony showed that the ilpassed, the seduced woman had no right of licit intercourse took place immediately after action; but now she has. This statute gives the plaintiff had drunk a glass of wine handher a right of action which she may enforce ed her by defendant. Her testimony was in her own name. Watson v. Watson, 49 open to two constructions; one that the interMich. 540, 14 N. W. 489. But does it give course occurred while she was unconscious her a right of action if the intercourse is en from the effect of the wine, and the other tirely accomplished by force and against | that she was conscious and was induced to her will? If the intercourse is accomplished yield her consent by reason of defendant's in part by force and in part by seductive seductive promises. Plaintiff recovered a verarts, the case is one of seduction and with | dict and judgment in the trial court. Dein the statute. Watson v. Watson, 53 Mich. || fendant asked the trial court to reverse that 168, 18 N. W. 605, 51 Am. Rep. 111. But that judgment upon the ground that plaintiff's is not this case. If the case of the plaintiff, | evidence did not establish a case of seduction. as averred in the declaration and establish- | The Supreme Court decided otherwise, sayed by the testimony, is one of seduction, it ing: “Assuming her to have been conscious would be a most equitable doctrine, though at the time the act of intercourse took place, its legality may be open to question, to say and assented thereto”-she was seduced. that the defendant should not be permitted to | And it was also held that defendant could avoid responsibility by proving that he com not escape responsibility because the evidence mitted the more heinous offense of rape. | disclosed him guilty of the more heinous But that is not the case. Here the case crime of rape. In that case, assuming plainmade by plaintiff's declaration and by her tiff to have been unconscious at the time the illicit intercourse occurred, she had, under, but are repugnant to it, are not material, and a declaration alleging seduction, recovered will neither vitiate a good pleading nor cure damages for a rape. Inasmuch as she had a one that is defective." In support of this right to recover such damages on common- statement a number of cases are cited, one of law principles, the only possible valid objec- which (Parnaby V. Lancaster Canal Co., 11 tion that could have been made was one of Ad. & El., 223) is very similar to the case at variance, viz., that she had been permitted to bar. "This (as stated in the opinion of the recover on a cause of action different from lower court) was an action on the case for that stated in her declaration. No such ob- | negligence in leaving a sunken barge in the dejection was made, and that point was not fendant's canal which the plaintiff's vessel considered by the Supreme Court. The ob- | ran against and was thereby sunk.” In the jection was that plaintiff could not recover, declaration it was averred that the duty of not because of variance, but because there defendant to remove the sunken vessel arose was no proof of seduction. It was a com from a certain act of Parliament therein set plete answer to that contention to say, as forth. After verdict and judgment in favor the court did say, that, though the testimony | of plaintiff, the case was reviewed by a writ established a case of rape, it would not de- of error. The proposition there raised and feat recovery. In that case plaintiff recovers, decided is shown by the following quotation not because she proved seduction—the cause from the opinion of Tindal, C. J.: "The prinof action averred in her declaration--but be cipal objection in this case was that the cause she proved another and a very different clause recited in the declaration, and which cause of action, viz., rape, and the court was is therein stated to have cast a duty on the quite correct, under a record which disclosed company to remove the obstruction caused by no objection upon the ground of variance, in the sunken boat, was not obligatory, but was saying that this was no defense. In other an enabling or permissive clause only, and we words, Marshall v. Taylor does not decide are all of that opinion. Neither the clause that rape is seduction, nor that rape can be recited, nor anything in the act of Parliament proved under a declaration averring seduc contained, imposes such a duty on the defendtion. It merely holds that on that record ants below, and the allegation in the declara record disclosing no objection on the ground ation, as to the duty of the company, seems of variance it was of no avail for defend | to have been founded on a mistake as to the ant to say that the testimony proved rape, true meaning and effect of that clause. But instead of seduction. Had such an objection, admitting this to be so, the question then been made, a different question would have arises whether, upon the facts stated in the been presented, and we are not informed declaration, another duty of a different kind how that question would have been determin. was not imposed by the common law upon ed. I am therefore of the opinion that Mar- this company, and whether a sufficient breach shall v. Taylor is not an authority for the of that duty is not alleged. It is clear that proposition that the plaintiff in this case had the statement of the duty in the declaration a right to bring suit for rape under section is an inference of law from the facts, and 10.418 of the Compiled Laws of 1897, and, as need not be stated at all, or, if improperly already stated, I think she had no such right. stated, may be altogether rejected. Omitting,

It does not follow, however, that plaintiff therefore, as it appears to us, the improper should be defeated in this action. Upon com- and unfounded statement of duty in the dec. mon-law principles she had a right to main- laration, the facts stated in the inducement tain an action and recover damages for show that the company made the canal for the assault committed upon her. The decla- | their profit, and opened it to the public upon ration in this case states every essential ele- | the payment of tolls to the company; and ment to entitle her to recover under com the common law, in such a case, imposes a mon-law principles. It is true that it states duty upon the proprietors, not perhaps to something more, viz., it says that she brings | repair the canal, or absolutely to free it this action by virtue of the provisions of from obstructions, but to take reasonable section 10,418 of the Compiled Laws of 1897. I care, so long as they keep it open for the If I am right in my reasoning, she could not public use of all who may choose to navigate bring it by virtue of that section. Defendant it, that they may navigate without danger to contends, and has always contended, that she their lives or property. We concur with the could not bring it by virtue of that section. Court of Queen's Bench in thinking that a In my view of the case, and in his view of | duty of this nature is imposed upon the comthe case, this reference to the statute was a pany, and that they are responsible for the surplusage. Why should it defeat recovery? | breach of it upon a similar principle to that It was an averment of a proposition of law which makes a shopkeeper, who invites the which was unsound. It did not deceive the public to his shop, liable for neglect on leavdefendant. It had no effect upon the trial. ing a trap door open without any protection, It was a mere surplusage, and should be dis- | by which his customers suffer injury'-and regarded. In 21 Ency. of Pleading & Practice, the judgment was aflirmed. I think it may Fol. 21, p. 293, it is said: "Averments of le- also be said that the Parnaby Case is in hargal conclusions and inferences which do not mony with our own decisions. Smith v. correctly state the law applicable to the facts, Holmes, 54 Mich. 104, 19 N. W. 767. See,

also, Atty. Gen. v. Mich. State Bank, 2 Doug. | Certiorari to review a judgment dismissing 359; Holdridge v. Farmer's & Mechanic's a proceeding by the Detroit Lumber Company Bank, 16 Mich. 72.

against the Petrel. Judgment reversed, and It is said that, considered as a common- | new trial ordered. law declaration, there was an irregularity in Argued before MONTGOMERY, OSTRANthe appointment of a next friend. It is to be DER, HOOKER, MOORE, and McALVAY, JJ. observed that defendant, as well as plaintiff, E. T. Berger, for appellant. Trevor & has treated the mother of plaintiff as her

| Bumps, for appellee. next friend. The objection to the regularity of her appointment is one which cannot now MONTGOMERY, J. The proceeding was be made. Sick v. Michigan Aid Ass'n, 49

instituted under the water-craft law, soMich. 50, 12 N. W. 905; McDonald v. Weir,

called, to recover for certain lumber and ma76 Mich. 243, 42 N. W. 1114.

terials supplied to the owners and used in It is said that Ryan v. Fralick, 50 Mich.

the building, fitting out and furnishing the 483, 15 N. W. 561, is inconsistent with the

yacht Petrel. The amount of the complainthought that the reference to the statute

ant's claim is $60.93 and interest. When the may be treated as surplusage. To this I can

case came on for bearing before the circuit not agree. It is true in that case it was

judge, a motion was made by the defendant held that the declaration was based on the

to dismiss the proceedings for want of jurisstatute (section 10,418), and could not be re

diction, on the ground that the amount ingarded as a common-law declaration ; but it

volved being less than $100 there was no could not be said there, as here, that the dec

jurisdiction in the circuit court to try the laration on its face showed that the reference

case. This motion was granted, and the rulto the statute was erroneous. That declara

ing on that motion presents the only question tion could not be treated as a common-law

for our consideration. declaration because, unlike the one in this

The defendant contends that the case of case, it did not contain the essential ele

Dewey v. Duyer, 39 Mich. 509, should control ments of a common-law declaration.

this case. In that case the question presented Holding, as I do, that under defendant's

was whether the mechanic's lien law concontention the declaration is a common-law

ferred jurisdiction upon a court of chancery declaration, the judgment must be affirmed.

where the amount involved was less than MCALVAY, J., concurred with CARPEN

$100. The statute governing the courts of TER, J.

chancery contains the provision that the courts of chancery shall dismiss every suit concerning property except suits between co

partners and suits for the foreclosure of DETROIT LUMBER CO. V. THE PETREL. mortgages where the matter in dispute does (Supreme Court of Michigan. July 1, 1908.)

not exceed $100. In view of the existence of 1. Courts—MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURTS-JU

this statute, and of the absence of any exRISDICTION-LEGISLATVE POWER.

press conference of jurisdiction in cases inThe Legislature can confer jurisdiction up

volving less than $100 in the lien statute iton the circuit court in cases involving any

self, the court held that the court of chanamount. 2. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE - JURISDICTION

cery had not jurisdiction to enforce a me. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

chanic's lien for less than $100, the court Under Const. art. 6, § 18, giving justices saying, “Implications in favor of jurisdiction of the peace specified jurisdiction in civil cases,

cannot be much indulged.” It is beyond ques. with such exceptions and restrictions as may be prescribed by law, the Legislature can with

tion that the Legislature has the power to draw any cause from the justices' jurisdiction. confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court in

(Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. cases involving any amount. Section 18, art. vol. 31, Justices of the Peace, $ 72.]

6, of the Constitution, provides that in civil 3. Courts—DICTUM-EFFECT.

cases justices of the peace shall have jurisA dictum is entitled to no greater weight

diction to the amount of $100 and concurrent than would be given it as an expression of an opinion of the justice writing it.

juråsdiction to the amount of $300 (which may [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig.

increase to $500), with such exceptions and vol. 13, Courts, $ 335.]

restrictions as may be provided by law. Any 4. EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL NOTICE — SEAMEN'S legislation, therefore, which clearly withWAGES.

draws from the jurisdiction of the justices The Supreme Court takes judicial notice of

of the peace any cause is within the constithe fact that a seaman's accrued wages very rarely aggregate $100.

tutional power of the Legislature, and the 5. MARITIME LIENS-DEMANDS AGAINST WA | only question presented is whether the waterTER CRAFT-ENFORCEMENTS JURISDICTION. craft law expresses with sufficient clearness

Under Comp. Laws, $ 10,789, giving a lien the intention to repose in the circuit court on certain water craft for material furnished,

jurisdiction of cases involving a lien against etc., and under section 10,790, giving specified circuit courts jurisdiction to enforce such liens vessels without regard to the amount. In such courts have jurisdiction of such claims re Milroy v. Mining Co., 43 Mich. 237, 5 N. W. gardless of the amount thereof.

287, it was said that the circuit courts are Certiorari to Circuit Court, Wayne Coun- | given jurisdiction in claims against boats and ty; Alfred J. Murphy, Judge.

| vessels irrespective of the amount claimed. It is properly said in defendant's brief that mortgage, but was entitled to sell them in this was dictum. It is therefore entitled to quantities, so long as it acted reasonably and in no greater weight than would be given it as

good faith. an expression of an opinion of the justice

[Ed. Note.-For cases in poini, see Cent. Dig.

vol. 9, Chattel Mortgages, $ 540.] writing the opinion. The real question is, what was the intent

3. SAME-NEGLIGENCE OF MORTGAGEE.

Where, in an action against a mortgagee of of the Legislature, as expressed by the act? |

logs for negligence in caring for and selling Undoubtedly the language of the statute (sec them after taking possession under the morttion 10.790. Como. Laws) is broad enough to gage, it appeared that a quantity of the logs confer jurisdiction in the circuit court over

seized belonged to a third person, and were not

covered by the mortgage, though intermingled the claim of any person claiming to have a l with the mortgaged logs, defendant was not lialien specified in section 2 of the act. In fact ble to the mortgagor or his assignee for any it would be necessary to introduce an excep

of its acts with reference to the logs not so

mortgaged. tion by implication in order to exclude from

4. SAME-DAMAGES-EVIDENCE. the jurisdiction of the circuit court claims in

Where a mortgagee of logs seized them, and polving less than $100. But when we take

other intermingled logs, belonging to the T. cominto account the purpose of the act, which pany, which were not mortgaged, and towed was to protect labor and seamen's wages, as

them to a lake for the purpose of sorting, de

fendant was not liable to the mortgagor's aswell as subcontractors and materialmen, and

signor for negligence in towing some of the inwhen the fact-of which we may take judi termingled logs at an improper season of the cial notice is considered that accrued sea year, by reason of which some of the logs were men's wages very rarely aggregate $100, the

lost, in the absence of evidence from which the

jury could determine how many of the lost inference is strong that the purpose was to

logs belonged to plaintiff's assignor and how confer jurisdiction in this class of cases with many to the T. company. out regard to the amount. It is specially pro 5. PLEADING – AMENDMENT --- DECLARATIONvided by section 10,833 that in suits for sea DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION. men's wages no security for costs shall be

Where a declaration by the assignee of a

mortgagor of logs against the mortgagee allegrequired except by special order of the court

ed a conversion, but, after it had been held on or judge thereof upon motion and notice and writ of error, that defendant's acts did not confor good cause shown, thus showing that one stitute a conversion, plaintiff filed an amendof the first objects of the statute was the pro

ment, alleging negligence on the part of the

mortgagee in caring for and selling the logs afttection of sea men. We think that the terms

er taking possession thereof under the mortgage, of the act do not render it necessary to give the logs, persons, and acts referred to in the it a construction which shall defeat the pur

amendment being the same as those pleaded in

the original declaration, the amendment was pose of the Legislature, but on the contrary

authorized. that all claims under this statute are by sec TEd. Note.-For cases in noint, see Cent. Dig. tion 10,790 brought within the jurisdiction of vol. 39, Pleading, $8 686–709.) the circuit court, and that there is nothing in 6. TRIAL-DIRECTION OF VERDICT. any other provision of the act or in any other Where, in an action by the assignee of a statute which should, in view of the special

chattel mortgagor against the mortgagee, there

was evidence to support plaintiff's claim that, purpose of this act, be held to exclude by im

after all reasonable expenses had been paid, a plication claims of less than $100.

balance would still be due him from the proThe judgment is reversed, and a new trial

ceeds of a sale of the property on foreclosure, ordered.

and also that a large quantity of the mortgaged logs were lost by reason of the mortgagee's neg. ligence, the court did not err in refusing to di

rect a verdict for defendant. CROZE v. ST. MARY'S CANAL MINERAL I (Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. LAND CO.

vol. 46, Trial, $$ 381-389.]

7. EVIDENCE-TESTIMONY AT FORMER TRIAL. (Supreme Court of Michigan. July 1, 1908.)

Where a witness was beyond the jurisdic1. CHATTEL MOBTGAGES - FORECLOSURE - tion, it was proper to permit plaintiff to read SALE-EXCESSIVE SALE.

in evidence his testimony given at a former Where the amount due on a mortgage of trial. logs was $4,950.40, and payments for liens, sher Ed. Note.--For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. iff's fees, and expenses of sorting, scaling, tow vol. 20, Evidence, $ 2406.) ing, and delivering the logs to a place where

8. TRIAL-INSTRUCTIONS. they could be advantageously sold brought the whole amount up to $7,051.71, and the mort

A portion of a charge objected to will be ga gee sold, under the mortgage, at the first sale,

considered in connection with the entire charge. logs amounting to $5,300; and at subsequent

(Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. sales additional amounts, making the total $7, vol. 46, Trial, 88 703–718.) 713.43, it was not liable as for an excessive sale, Grant, C. J., and Hooker, J., dissenting in but was only responsible for the surplus after

part. satisfying the mortgage debt and such legitimate expenses.

Error to Circuit Court, Houghton County; (Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig.

Albert T. Streeter, Judge. vol. 9, Chattel Mortgages, 83 510, 545.)

Action by Joseph Croze against the St. 2. SAME-SALE IN QUANTITIES.

Mary's Canal Mineral Land Company. JudgOn foreclosure of a mortgage on logs, the mortgagee was not bound to sell them one by | ment for plaintiff, and defendant brings erone until it had realized enough to satisfy the | ror, Reversed, and new trial granted.

117 N.W.6

« 이전계속 »