Bernard v. Lüpping
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. The testimony in this' case shows such an utter confusion of ideas, as to matters sacred and profane, as to become really amusing; and for this reason we submit it in full, for permanent preservation. The plaintiff called as a witness John E. Lubbering, who testified as follows: “ I know the parties to this suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. The testimony in this' case shows such an utter confusion of ideas, as to matters sacred and profane, as to become really amusing; and for this reason we submit it in full, for permanent preservation. The plaintiff called as a witness John E. Lubbering, who testified as follows: “ I know the parties to this suit. The defendants kept Hyde Park during the spring of 1859; I was engaged there from the first of May to the last of July. Hyde Park was doing business like all the other parks; it had amusements, and all kinds of refreshments, and sacred…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
The defendants were the keepers of Hyde Park, in St. Louis, a place of public amusement of extensive resort, where various sports were provided for the entertainment of visitors, such as quoits, ten-pin alleys, shooting-galleries, swings, and flying-horses ; and where beer, wine, ice-cream and other refreshments were sold and consumed; and to add to the attractions of the place of Sundays, the services of a band of musicians were in requisition. The plaintiff, it seems, was the leader of a musical band, and was under contract with the defendants, by which he was to render them the services of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kusnetsky v. Security InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- Roberts v. BarnesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Ashby v. HolmesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896