Notes: Jindra & Chaloupka Roots and Branches

Notes

Matches 51 to 100 of 1,926

#	Notes	Linked to
51	"Illinois, Cook County Deaths, 1871-1998," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N7WR-TJ6 : 8 March 2018), John Kohout in entry for James Kohout, 14 Feb 1914; citing , Cook, Illinois, United States, source reference cn 4371, record number 46, Cook County Courthouse, Chicago; FHL microfilm 1,239,968.	KOHOUT, James (I6919)
52	"Illinois, Cook County Deaths, 1878-1994," database, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGNF-BSS6 : 18 March 2018), Edward Chaloupka in entry for Alice A Kouba, 14 Jan 1986; citing Melrose Park, Cook, Illinois, United States, source reference , record number , Cook County Courthouse, Chicago; FHL microfilm .	CHALOUPKA, Alice A. (I1343)
53	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: GREER, Ralph Robert / Living (F889)
54	"Maryland Marriages, 1666-1970", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F4JW-7ZX : 16 January 2020), Joseph Eckart, 1880.	Family: ECKART, Joseph Franklin / FOWLER, Ellen Mason (F2445)
55	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I2280)
56	"The Antigo Daily Journal" Antigo, Langlade Co., WI Friday, September 28, 2001. NORMAN FRONEK Norman Fronek, Antigo, died Thursday, Sept. 27, 2001 at home under the came of LeRoyer Hospice. He was 87 years old. He was born on July 1, 1914, in the town of Ackley, a son of the late John and Emma (Honzik) Fronek. On Sept. 9, 1939 he married Hilda Frisch at Peace Lutheran Church in Antigo. She preceded him in death on Dec. 17, 1996. Mr. Fronek graduated from Antigo High School in 1932. He attended the Langlade County Normal School and the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. He taught school until 1950 and owned and operated a dairy farm. Mr. Fronek served on the Langlade County Board and was one of the original aldermen of the Antigo City Council as well as a member of the school board. He also served on the board of the American Dairy Association, the Farmer's Home Administration and the Badger Breeders Cooperative. He was director at Production Credit Association, as well as president of Antigo Milk Products Cooperative. Mr. Fronek was a member of Peace Lutheran Church. Survivors include two daughters, Diane (James) Block, Spring Valley, Minn., Janice (Merritt) Schmidt, Gresham; three sons, David (Karlynn) Fronek, Edina, Minn., Tom (Patricia) Fronek, Menasha, and Dan (Kirsten) Fronek, Woodbury, Minn.; 10 grandchildren, two great grandchildren, a sister, Clara Steber, Polar, and a brother, Edward Fronek, Antigo. In addition to his parents and wife, he was preceded in death by four brothers, Harry Sr., John Jr., Ervin and Raymond Fronek. Funeral services will be held at 11:30 a.m. on Monday at Peace Lutheran Church. Rev. Joseph Marsh will officiate. Burial will be in Bohemian National Cemetery. Visitation will be Sunday from 3 until 7 p.m. at the Strasser-Roller Funeral Home and Monday from 10:30 a.m. until the time of services at the church. A memorial has been established in Mr. Fronek's name.	FRONEK, Norman (I2571)
57	"Wisconsin Death Index, 1820-1907," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VJPQ-ZQB : 12 December 2014), Ernest F Pfennig, 26 Jul 1892; from "Wisconsin Deaths, 1820-1907," database, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : 2000); citing p. 0211, volume 16, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, reel 074, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, Vital Records Division, Madison.	PFENNIG, Ernst F. (I1117)
58	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Living / Living (F548)
59	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Living / Living (F231)
60	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Living / Living (F1711)
61	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Living / Living (F2258)
62	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Family: Living / ECKART, Anna (F1840)
63	(First publication June 26, 1890.) STATE OF WISCONSIN-MANITOWOC COUNTY. In Probate. In the matter of the estate of William Menicke (sic) deceased. On reading and filing the petition of Charles Menicke, of the town of Two Rivers, Manitowoc county, Wisconsin, representing among other things that William Menicke, late of said town and county, on the 3d day of November, A.D., 1889, at said town in said county, died intestate, leaving goods, chattels and estate within this state, and that the said petitioner is a brother and heir at law of said deceased, and praying that administration of said estate be to Charles Menicke granted, it is ordered that said petition be heard before this court, on Tuesday, the 22nd day of July, A.D., 1890, at 10 o'clock a.m., at my office in said county. Ordered further, that notice thereof be given to the heirs of said deceased, and to all persons interest, by publishing a copy of this order for three successive weeks, prior to said day of hearing, in the Manitowoc Pilot, a weekly newspaper published at said city in said county. Dated at Manitowoc, the 23d day of June, A.D. 1890. Emil Baensch, County Judge. Manitowoc Pilot, Thursday, July 3, 1890 P. 2	MEINEKE, William W. (I27)
64	(From the Manitowoc Co. Chronicle, Tuesday, Nov. 17, 1885): Married:- At the home of the bride's parents, on Saturday, November 14, 1885, Justice O'Hara officiating, Mr. Henry Kempfer of Gibson and Miss Emma Blum of Mishicott. The bride is the eldest daughter of our esteemed townsman, Wm. Blum Esq. and is a young woman of excellent qualities of head and heart. The groom is a well-to-do young farmer of Gibson and seems to be in every way worthy of the fair one who has given him her heart and hand. That each returning year may bring them a fuller measure of happiness and prosperity than the one that went before, is the heartfelt wish of their numerous friends.	KEMPFERT, Heinrich C. (I1034)
65	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I5445)
66	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I4511)
67	001238Kramer - John Trapp Kramer Jr 83 Died Thursday February 28 20 02 at Home In Cocoa Fla. He was A retiree of the Us Corps of Engineer s. He worked in Tenn, Va, N Mex, La, and Fla. He was a captain in the ar my In World War II serving in N Africa and Italy repairing and building mi litary bridges. After the war he returned to LSU and graduated in 19 48 as a civil engineer, He was the son of the late John T Kramer Sr And A nita Wenholz Kramer. He is survived by his wife Mary C Kramer, two sons John T Kramer III, Pa ul M Kramer and his daughter Gini K Goldman. He is also survived by two s isters Joyce K Thompson and Janet K Heaton. He was the brother of the la te Harry 'Hap' Kramer, June K Bernhardt, Marjory Kramer, and half-broth er of Izola K Nichols. He was buried in Cocoa Beach Fla The Times-Picayu ne 04/20	KRAMER, John Trapp Jr. (I4953)
68	001907Audibert - Eleonora Barbier Audibert, a homemaker, died Saturday at Northshore Medical Center in Slidell. She was 91. Mrs. Audibert was born in New Orleans and lived in Slidell for three years. Survivors include her son, Leon Audibert; two daughters, Vilma Dreux and Rose Terry; 18 grandchildren; and 24 great-grandchildren. A funeral service will be held Tuesday at 2 p.m. at Jacob Schoen & Son Funeral Home, 3827 Canal St., New Orleans. Burial will be in Greenwood Cemetery. Times Picayune 09-02-1991	BARBIER, Eleanora (I6185)
69	02 July 1908 (From the correspondent in Mishicott, 30 June) Mrs. W. BLUM, accompanied by her granddaughter, Miss L. NOCKER, spent last week in Algoma visiting relatives.	WULF, Dorothea (I1026)
70	1865 name was listed as Matilda 1870 name was listed as Louisa	FREITAG, Matilda Louise (I2865)
71	1870 census Manitowoc County 1 29 6 6 Frank Lainhart 40 M Farmer 2500 500 Prussia 1 30 6 6 Mary Lainhart 32 F Keeps House____Prussia Frank Lainhart 8 Prussia Cathrine Lainhart 6 Prussia	LENHARDT, Franz Sr. (I815)
72	19 Sept 1901 alternate date, source unknown	Family: JONES, John Sr / THOMPSON, Relia Ruthie (F1919)
73	1900 Census	KEMPFERT, Heinrich C. (I1034)
74	1900 Census Frank is living with his sister Mary in the Town of Mishicot, page 14 Lines 71-74	JINDRA, Frank (I21)
75	1900 Census living with them Name: Bennie Montgomery Home in 1900: Hartland, Freeborn, Minnesota Age: 9 Birth Date: Mar 1891 Birthplace: Wisconsin Race: White Ethnicity: American Relationship to head-of-house: Step Son [Grandson] Father's Birthplace: Wisconsin Mother's Birthplace: Wisconsin Marital Status: Single Article published in the paper describing their life on their 63 anniversary. Sunday Tribune, The \| Albert Lea, Minnesota \| Sunday, November 01, 1953 \| Page 9 Couple Find Hard Work Key To Long Married Life Mr. and Mrs. John Eckart, who were married in New Richland, Oct. 27, 1890, observed their 63rd wedding anniversary quietly Tuesday. Mrs. Eckart, an energetic 81 years old, passed up a bus ride that afternoon to walk from downtown Albert Lea to their home at 911 Bridge Ave., after a shopping trip. She often walks home from services at Salem Lutheran church, she said. Visitors who came to help them observe the anniversary kept, the couple up late Tuesday night. Mrs. Eckart was up early the next morning, though, cleaning house, and making plans for a trip to Wisconsin. She anticipated the trip to Antigo, Wis., with her daughter Friday, would require about 7 hours driving "It took me two weeks to make that trip by wagon when I came to Minnesota," her husband recalled. Eckart, who is 89, did not accompany his wife to the town which was once his home. Because his legs bother him, he can not be as active as Mrs, Eckart, he explained. Both agree they've worked hard during their lives. The couple met in the 80's when both were working at the Chris Jensen farm between New Richland and Hartland. Jenson had persuaded Eckart, who had struck out on his own in the logging region o£ Wisconsin at the age of 16, to come with him after relatives wrote Jenson that land in the area was cheap. Jenson acquired a farm, and Eckart went to work for him. He met ais future wife on that same farm. Ida Bertha Moldenhauer, pretty, curly - barred daughter of a neighboring farmer, was hired to do housework in the Jenson home for $1.50 a week. "And I did the washing by hand, with only a washboard," she recalls now. Jenson lost both his hired man and hired girl when the couple were married. They started out their married life on a rented farm In the area. Included in the deal was the use of eight cows for $10 a year, Eckart recalls. After a couple of years, the owner told Eckart that he had only $200 in the farm himself (it was covered by two mortgages) and suggested that he buy it Eckart bought the farm, and in a few years was able to build a house to replace the shack the couple had lived in, and a new barn. Discouraged at one time about 45 years ago, by a hailstorm that ruined crops, the Eckarts moved to South Dakota, found they didn't like it there, and returned to farm four miles outside Albert Lea. About 17 years ago they moved to their present home. The couple have six children, 15 grandchildren, and five great grandchildren. One son, Elmer, died in 1935. A daughter, Mrs. Albert (Agnes) Dubberstein, lives in Armstrong and another daughter, Mrs. Edward (Alice) BaRluan, lives in New Richland. Their sons are: Emil, of Austin, Walter of Bancroft, Erwin at home, and George, who lives on the home farm. Mrs, Eckart complains that arthritis in her hands prevents her from doing as much work as she would like to do, but she still does her own housework, gets up at 5 o'clock on summer mornings to work in her large garden, and does lots of canning. At one time, when her children were small, physicians in a Roches-ter hospital, did not expect her to recover from an operation. Four years ago, she was in critical condition following a stroke. "I believe God sets a time for everybody to go, and my time has not come," she said. "But if there's anything that keeps me alive, I'd say it's just work." Her husband nodded agreement.	ECKART, John Nepomucene (I5475)
76	1900 Census shows Andrew is naturalized	BOUDA, Onrej (I1370)
77	1900 Census shows immigration 1867 here 33 years	PELISHEK, Mary (I5367)
78	1900 John Lived with his Brother Wenzel in Mishicott Township according to the 1900 census Activities for past week Sheboygan Press December 7, 1918 page 4 Joseph Ginzel to John Jindra, lot 9 blk 254, Sheboygan $1 Was Joseph Marie's brother or father? Sheboygan Press (Sheboygan, Wisconsin) > 1918 > December > 7 Joseph Ginzel transfer of property to John Jindra, lot 9 blk 254 Sheboygan, $1	JINDRA, John Francis Sr. (I436)
79	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I7473)
80	1910 Census Family 261 Household 266 Town of Kossuth Married 6 years 28 years old Mary his wife, Roman his son From a Green Bay Newspaper Funeral Services Emil A. Radey-At Blaney Funeral Home. Rosary 7:30 tonight, Msgr. Henry C. Head. Funeral services 11:15 a.m. Thursday, St. Patrick Church. Fort Howard Cemetery. Mr. Radey died early Tuesday Morning at his residence after a long illness. He as a member of St. Patrick Holy Name Society. From another paper December 19, 1961 Emil A. Radey, 80, 422 N. Maple Ave., died early this morning at his residence after a long illness. He was a member of St. Patrick Holy Name Society. Survivors include his wife, the former Margaret F. Francart; two sons, Jerry J. and Harvey E., both of Green Bay; three grandchildren;two great-grandchildren; one brother, Frank, Manitowoc; two sisters, Mrs. Ann Ginzel, Manitowoc, and Mrs. Richard Stangel, Kewaunee. His first wife died in 1951. Friends may call at Blaney Funeral Home after 2 p.m. Wednesday. The Rosary will be recited at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday by Msgr. Henry C. Head. Funeral services will be at 11:15 a.m. Thursday at St. Patrick Church with burial in Fort Howard Cemetery.	RADEY, Emil Anton (I2395)
81	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I1380)
82	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I4744)
83	1970 > June > 26 Herald Times Reporter Mott Mrs. Sam Mott, 71, of Rt. 1, Mishicot, Town of Gibson died Thursday aftern oon at Two Rivers Municipal Hospital. Funeral services will be at 2 p.m. Sunday at Melnik Presbyterian Church, t he Rev. Charles Freuden officiating. Burial will be in Knollwood Memori al Gardens, Town of Kossuth. Mrs. Mott, nee Julia Chaloupka, was born Feb. 15, 1899, in the Town of Gib son, a daughter of the late Thomas and Ann Chaloupka. She was married Sep t. 12, 1922 to Sam Mott, after which the couple became engaged in farmi ng in the Town of Gibson. She was a member of the Melnick Presbyterian Ch urch and the Auxiliary of the Kempen-Staudinger-Terens Post, Veterans of F oreign Wars of Mishicot. Besides her husband she leaves four daughters, Mrs. Otto (Lucille) Robins on of Rt. 2, Kewaunee, Mrs. Chester (Grace) Novak of Rt. 2 Manitowoc, Mr s. Guardy (Jeanette) Rezek of Rt. 2 Two Rivers, and Mrs. Paul (Edith) Ande rson of Two Rivers; two sons, Alvin of Two Rivers, and Robert of Rt. 1 Kew aunee; a brother Adoph Chaloupka and a step-brother, Edwin Chaloupka of R t. 2 Two Rivers; 25 grandchildren and 14 great grandchildren. A sister a nd three grandsons preceded her in death. Friends may call at Lambert Funeral Home, Mishicot, after 3 p.m.until no on sunday when the casket will be taken to the church where the body wi ll lie in state until the time of services.	CHALOUPKA, Julia A. (I1358)
84	21- ST. HUBERT CATHOLIC CEMETERY-LINCOLN TOWNSHIP Located NW 1/4 Section 5 Parish cemetery of St. Hubert's Church. Maintained in good condition by parishioners In Rosiere on corner of Cty X & Church roads. 21 GASPARD Jos. xx xxx xxxx 14 Aug 1895 Age 71/ChRcds./NO STONE	GASPARD, Francois Joseph (I985)
85	33 Violet Osier Mercury	AUDIBERT, Valentine L. Jr. (I6280)
86	34 years old at death California Death Index, 1940-1997 Record Name: AUGUSTINE, GREGORY DENNIS Social Security #: 394641513 Sex: MALE Birth Date: 20 Dec 1955 Birthplace: WISCONSIN Death Date: 3 Dec 1990 Death Place: ORANGE Mother's Maiden Name: RADEY Father's Surname: Source Information: Ancestry.com. California Death Index, 1940-1997. [database online] Provo, UT: Ancestry.com, 2000. Original electronic data: State of California. California Death Index, 1940-1997. Sacramento, CA: State of California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, 19--.	AUGUSTINE, Gregory Dennis (I1274)
87	340-10-6839	RAPER, Winton Theopilous (I5167)
88	387-24-1398	BLANK, Edna (I4791)
89	391-60-5176	ZIEMKE, Myrtle Viola (I5818)
90	395-12-5267	LORENZ, Helen Dorothy (I1364)
91	397-10-6034	TESS, Wallace Reinhold Sr. (I5183)
92	4 May 1970 Chicago Tribune Traxel Leonard P. Traxel of Rolling Meadows, beloved husband of Esther, nee Hel s; dear father of Warren L. (Marilyn) Traxel; two grandchildren; loving br other of George and the late Richard. Visitation Monday after 3 p.m. at O ehler Funeral Home, Lee at Perry street, Des Plaines, where services wi ll be held Tuesday, 1 p.m. Interment Acacia Park Cemetery. In lieu of flo wers, contributions to the First Congregational Church of Des Plaines or B ethany United Church of Christ, 4250 N. Paulina street, Chicago, 824-5155.	TRAXEL, Leonard (I2749)
93	433-03-1707	WENHOLZ, Esther (I6091)
94	436-01-9192	LIVAUDAIS, Eugene (I6092)
95	46th Congress 2d Session House of Representatives Report No. 1567 Albert Freitag. June 4, 1880-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. Barber, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany bill H.R. 1151.] The committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 1151) for the relief of Albert Freitag, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report: That the claimant, Albert Freitag, is a resident of Nicollet, Nicollet County, State of Minnesota, and resided there during the year 1862. The testimony of Mr. Freitag shows that on the 25th day of August, 1862, he was on his way to Saint Peter, in said Nicollet County; that at the time he owned and was driving a span of gray horses, three years old; that said span of horses were in good condition; that while driving he was met by Capt. E. St. Julien Cox, who had command of a company, marching to the relief of New Ulm, which was at that time besieged by hostile Indians of the Sioux Nation or tribe. Captain Cox as an officer iin command of State forces, took from the claimant his team, and pressed the same into service of the volunteers he was then leading against the Indians; that Cox gave claimant a voucher or certificate, setting forth that his team had been taken for the use of the volunteers in the defense of New Ulm. In two weeks from the time said team was taken, claimant found them at Saint Peter, reduced in flesh, saddle-galled, and so poor that they could not be used until sometime in the winter; that in consequence thereof he was compelled to hire a team to do his fall plowing. The claimant testifies that the voucher given him by Captain Cox was burned up with his father's house, and for a long time he thought he could not collect any compensation because he had lost the voucher. He has, however, furnished a certificate from Captain Cox, who is now judge of the ninth judicial district of Minnesota, certifying that he took the horses belonging to Mr. Freitag for the use of the volunteers he was in command of. The claimant has also produced a certificate from ten of his neighbors who were well acquainted with him at the time the horses were taken, and who state they believe the facts to be true as stated, and the use of the property with the amount claimed. Your committee are of the the opinion that the facts as stated by the claimant are true, and that he is entitled to relief in the sum of $65. They therefore recommend that the bill be amended by inserting said amount and put upon its passage.	FREITAG, Albert O. (I2833)
96	477-22-2491	VITT, Edna Elizabeth (I5152)
97	483-36-3264	SPORLEDER, Albert Arthur (I4477)
98	63 Wn.2d 463, CHESTER CHALOUPKA, Respondent, v. PAUL CYR, Appellant [No. 36627. Department Two. Supreme Court December 19, 1963.] CHESTER CHALOUPKA, Respondent, v. PAUL CYR, Appellant.<> [1] Bailment - Duty of Bailee - Care of Chattels. Under the ordinary bailm ent, the bailee is not an insurer, and is liable for loss or damage to a b ailed chattel only where he has failed to exercise ordinary care under t he circumstances. [2] Same - Presumptions - Negligence. When a bailor shows that his bail ed property was not returned or was returned damaged, he has establish ed a prima facie case, or raised a presumption that will, at least, car ry him past a nonsuit; however, where it is shown by either party that t he loss was caused by fire or other cause which does not, by itself, indic ate the negligence of the bailee, the presumption of liability is rebutte d, and the burden of proving negligence remains on the bailor. [3] Same - Evidence - Sufficiency. While a bailor need not prove a bailee 's negligence to an absolute certainty in order to recover for a bailed ch attel destroyed by fire, he must, nevertheless, establish such negligen ce by a preponderance of the evidence. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 14900 1, Frank Hale, J., entered May 7, 1962. Reversed. Action for damages to personal property. Defendant appeals from a judgme nt in favor of the plaintiff. Keesling & Lambert and James J. Keesling, for appellant. Charles W. Johnson and Brooks K. Johnson, for respondent. DONWORTH, J. - This is an appeal by defendant bailee from a judgment entered upon plainti ff's claim. The complaint alleged that plaintiff delivered his Oldsmobi le automobile to defendant, a body repairman, for the purpose of having se veral minor repairs made thereto, and that, while it was in defendant's po ssession, the car caught fire because of defendant's negligence, thus caus ing a total loss. The answer denied any negligence, and affirmatively alle ged that the fire was caused by "a short in the electrical Reported in 387 P. (2d) 740. [2] See Ann. 9 A.L.R. 570, 71 A.L.R. 773, 151 A.L.R. 725; Am. Jur. (2d), B ailments § 315. 464 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d) system." The trial to the court sitting without a jury resulted in a judgm ent for a total of $1,037.60, including stipulated damages ($1,000) and co sts ($37.60). There is no substantial issue of fact in this case. Respondent (bailor) de livered his automobile to appellant (bailee) to have certain minor repai rs made. While in the bailee's possession, prior to his doing any wo rk on the car, the vehicle was destroyed by fire from an unknown cause. The findings of fact of the trial court reflect the essential facts of t he case. Of the 10 findings of fact, only No. 9 (which is really a conclus ion of law) is challenged by appellant. The following are the trial court 's findings of fact, which are important to this appeal: "II. That on and prior to July 11, 1961 the Defendant operated an automobi le repair shop in Pierce County, Washington under the name of Frenchie's B ody and Fender Shop. "III. That on and prior to July 11, 1961, the Plaintiff was the own er of a 1958 Oldsmobile 88 2-door sedan automobile. "IV. That shortly prior to July 11, 1961, the Plaintiff and the Defenda nt entered into an oral agreement, whereby the Defendant engaged to perfo rm certain repairs to the Plaintiff's said automobile, and also engag ed to take the car to a specified radio repairman for the purpose of havi ng the radio in said car repaired; and that the parties agreed that the De fendant would be compensated for these services. "V. That the Plaintiff delivered said automobile into the possession of t he Defendant at his place of business sometime during the afternoon of Ju ly 11, 1961, for the purpose of having repairs made as above stated; th at thereafter, on that day or the day following, the Defendant accepted fu ll time employment at an auto wrecking establishment near Tacoma, whi ch is located 10 or 12 miles distant from his own place of business, and w hich is located across the street from the place of business of the rad io repairman who was to repair the radio of the Plaintiff's car. "VI. That on July 14, 1961 the Defendant drove the Plaintiff's said automo bile from his own place of business to his place of employment, arriving s hortly before 9:00 o'clock in the morning; that the Defendant parked sa id automobile on an outside parking lot on the premises where he was emplo yed; that the Defendant worked during that Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 465 entire day in an open area a short distance away, at a place in full vi ew of said automobile; that shortly before 4:30 in the afternoon of said d ay, the Defendant discovered the Plaintiff's said automobile to be on fir e; and that said fire was ultimately extinguished by the fire department. "VII. That the Plaintiff's said automobile was in good operating conditi on at the time it was left with the Defendant; that as a result of said fi re, the automobile was almost totally destroyed, and was thereafter sold f or salvage; and that by stipulation the parties have agreed that the amou nt of the damage to said automobile resulting from the fire is $1,000.00. "VIII. That after the fire was extinguished, the upholstery in the front s eat was found to be completely burned, and that in the back seat was subst antially burned; that there was considerable fire damage to and under t he dash on the inside; that the outside paint was severely damaged from t he lower glass line up, and from the cowl to the rear of the car, but w as not damaged forward of the cowl or on the hood; that all of the glass w as broken or damaged beyond repair; and that there was no damage to the mo tor or the front end. "IX. That the fire started somewhere in the passenger compartment; that ne ither party has established the cause of the fire; and that the Defenda nt has failed to establish that the fire did not result from his negligenc e." The trial court also entered the following conclusion of law: "III. That the liability of the Defendant results from the presumpti on of negligence arising from his failure to deliver the automobile ba ck to the Plaintiff in good condition, and his failure to show by eviden ce that the damage to said automobile did not result from his negligence. The legal issue to be decided on this appeal arises from finding of fact N o. 9 (which is really a conclusion of law) and from conclusion of law N o. 3. This issue can be briefly stated: who has the burden of proving negl igence of the bailee when only the delivery of possession to the bailee a nd subsequent damage to the property are shown. [1] Ordinarily the rule is that a bailee is only liable for loss or dama ge to a bailed chattel where he has failed to exercise ordinary care und er the circumstances; the 466 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d) bailee is not an insurer. Jones v. Warner, 57 Wn. (2d) 647, 359 P. (2d) 1 60 (1961); Ramsden v. Grimshaw, 23 Wn. (2d) 864, 162 P. (2d) 901 (1945); B urley v. Hurley-Mason Co., 111 Wash. 415, 191 Pac. 630 (1920); St. Paul Fi re & Marine Ins. Co. v. Chas. H. Lilly Co., 48 Wn. (2d) 528, 295 P. (2d) 2 99 (1956). In the Jones case, the rule is stated as follows: "A bailee is not an insurer of property placed in his charge, but is on ly required to exercise ordinary care. Carley v. Allen, 31 Wn. (2d) 730, 1 98 P. (2d) 827. But where property not perishable in nature is deliver ed to a bailee in good condition, and is not returned or is returned damag ed, a presumption arises of negligence on the part of the bailee and cas ts upon him the burden of showing the exercise of ordinary care. Burl ey v. Hurley-Mason Co., 111 Wash. 415, 191 Pac. 630. However, the presumpt ion does not arise unless it appears that the subject of the bailme nt is of such a nature that loss or injury could not ordinarily have occur red without negligence on the part of the bailee. Patterson v. Wenatchee C anning Co., 53 Wash. 155, 101 Pac. 721." [2] The rule followed in numerous decisions in this state on the questi on of burden of proof in bailment cases where property is lost or damag ed while in the bailee's possession, is that a prima facie case, or presum ption, is raised when the bailor shows nonreturn, loss, damage or destruct ion to bailed property. Althoff v. System Garages, Inc., 59 Wn. (2d) 86 0, 371 P. (2d) 48 (1962); Jones v. Warner, supra; Ramsden v. Grimshaw, sup ra; Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 84 P. (2d) 681, 119 A.L. R. 788 (1938); Burley v. Hurley-Mason Co., supra; Russell v. Union Mac h. & Supply Co., 88 Wash. 532, 153 Pac. 341 (1915); Parker v. Washington T ug & Barge Co., 85 Wash. 575, 148 Pac. 896 (1915); Kingsley v. Standard Lb r. Co., 84 Wash. 189, 146 Pac. 369 (1915); Colburn v. Washington State A rt Ass'n, 80 Wash. 662, 141 Pac. 1153 (1914); Patterson v. Wenatchee Canni ng Co., 53 Wash. 155, 101 Pac. 721 (1909); Pregent v. Mills, 51 Wash. 18 7, 98 Pac. 328 (1908). Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 467 However, if the bailee can show that he has exercised due care or can sh ow the loss was caused by burglary, larceny, fire, or other causes whi ch of themselves do not point to negligence on the part of the baile e, he can rebut the presumption. Jones v. Warner, supra; Dohrmann Hotel Su pply Co. v. Owl Transfer & Storage Co., 19 Wn. (2d) 522, 143 P. (2d) 44 1, 149 A.L.R. 1108 (1943); Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., supra; Birk v. B remerton, 137 Wash. 119, 241 Pac. 678 (1925); McDonald v. Wm. D. Perkins & Co., 133 Wash. 622, 234 Pac. 456, 40 A.L.R. 859 (1925); Harland v. Pe E ll State Bank, 122 Wash. 289, 210 Pac. 681 (1922); Firestone Tire & Rubb er Co. v. Pacific Transfer Co., 120 Wash. 665, 208 Pac. 55, 26 A.L.R. 2 17 (1922); Colburn v. Washington State Art Ass'n, supra; Patterson v. Wena tchee Canning Co., supra. By rebutting the presumption, the burden is on t he bailor to show that negligence of the bailee resulted in the loss or da mage to the bailed property. One bailment case states that presumption is sufficient only to get the pl aintiff past a nonsuit. Murphy v. Schwark, 117 Wash. 461, 201 Pac. 757 (19 21). This is the usual result reached when dealing with presumptions. The weight of authority (8 Am. Jur. (2d), Bailments § 315) appears to be t hat where the bailor shows that the failure of the bailee to return the su bject of the bailment in its original condition was because it was damag ed or destroyed by fire while in the bailee's possession, the burden of pr oving negligence remains on the bailor. In Birk v. Bremerton, 137 Wash. 119, 241 Pac. 678 (1925) the plaintiff's g oods were stored in the city's warehouse when they were destroyed by fi re of unknown origin. In holding that the city was not liable, this cou rt said, at page 121: "The law with reference to the liability of warehousemen is well settle d. A warehouseman is bound to exercise ordinary diligence only. Colbu rn v. Washington State Art Ass'n, 80 Wash. 662, 141 Pac. 1153, L.R.A. 191 5A 594. When, however, it is shown that the loss is occasioned by larcen y, burglary, fire, or other cause which of themselves do not 468 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d) point to negligence on the part of the bailee, the bailee has then met t he prima facie case made against him by his failure to return the goods, a nd the burden of proof as to negligence then rests upon the plainti ff as in any other case of alleged negligence. Colburn v. Washington Sta te Art Ass'n, supra; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pacific Trans. Co., 1 20 Wash. 665, 208 Pac. 55, 26 A.L.R. 217; Harland v. Pe Ell State Bank, 1 22 Wash. 289, 210 Pac. 681; McDonald v. Perkins & Co., 133 Wash. 622, 2 34 Pac. 456. "In the last cited case, we said that appellant in that instance did not s how the loss to fall within any of the exceptions as to the liability of t he bailee upon failure to return the goods, of fire, theft, leakage, or a ct of God. In this case, appellant brought itself within the recognized ex ceptions as to liability of a bailee for storage, and comes within the ru le stated in the foregoing cases. In the present case, respondent produced as a witness a captain of Pier ce County Fire District No. 2, who was called to the parking lot and arriv ed while the car was still smoldering. He examined the car thoroughly aft er the fire was extinguished and testified to its condition. He was examin ed by respondent's counsel and stated, in part, as follows: "Q. Does your Fire Department make any investigation of these thin gs as to the possible cause of the fires? A. No, we do at times, but bei ng rather short handed we are limited. Q. Do you know if any investigati on was made as to the cause of this particular fire? A. No, I don't. Not t hat I know of. Q. Is there anything in your official report that would ind icate the cause of the fire? A. No. Q. Did you make any tests as to the wi ring system or the electrical system of any kind? A. No." Thus respondent, in his case in chief, showed that appellant's failu re to return the car in its original condition was due to this fire. Conse quently, he had the burden of proving that the fire was caused by appellan t's negligence, which he failed to do. As to why he failed to redeliver the car to respondent in the same conditi on as when he received, appellant made the following explanation: That the car was delivered to him at his shop (which was located on his ho me property) on or about July 11, Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 469 1961. The parties agreed that, for $20, appellant was to fix a dent in t he dash and one in the bumper, and to drive the car to Mr. Brown's radio r epair shop. As appellant was not a radio repairman, the radio was to be re moved and repaired by Mr. Brown, who does radio repair work only in his sp are time (evenings and week ends). About that time, appellant accepted temporary full-time employment with Un ited Auto Wrecker, whose place of business was across the street from M r. Brown's place of business. July 14, 1961, appellant drove the car to the place of business of Unit ed Auto Wrecker when he went to work there about 9 a.m. and parked it in t he parking lot. He did not smoke any cigarettes while he was in the ca r. He worked outdoors where the car was in his range of vision all day. Be tween 4 and 4:30 p.m., the fire in the car occurred. Appellant's testimony regarding it is as follows: "Q. What first attracted your attention to the car? A. I was working and t hen all of a sudden I heard a horn blowing, so I looked around and I didn 't see anyone, so I kept on working and the horn kept on blowing; then a ll of a sudden I looked at the car and I see the windows were all blac k. I ran to the car and opened the door to see what was going on, and the re was an explosion, it must have knocked me about close to ten feet aw ay from the car. Q. Then what did you do? A. It burned the side of my fac e. Q. Then what did you do? A. Then I ran towards United Auto and told M r. Medley that I had a fire in the back and I needed some men to come o ut there and put it out. I picked up some water and ran back towards the c ar and Mr. Medley himself called the Fire Department. Q. Did Mr. Medley co me out? A. No, he had to look after the office. Q. The Fire Department h ad to put the fire out? A. Definitely, yes. Q. You describe it as almo st an explosion when you opened the door? A. As soon as I opened the do or that is when it blew up. Q. Did you look at the car later? A. I beg yo ur pardon? Q. Did you inspect the car after - ? A. After the fire was o ut I looked at it, yes. Q. Do you have any knowledge of where the fire sta rted? A. According to my knowledge, I would say that the fire started und er the dash somewhere. Q. You don't know where it started? 470 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d) A. No. Q. Was all of the upholstery burned in the back seat? A. No, mo st of the fire was in front, the dash was all burned down, the windshie ld was all crinkled to sand. In the back seat there was still upholste ry in it. I would say that the fire was in the front part of the car. Q. A fter the fire did you report to Mr. Chaloupka? A. I did. It was the fir st thing I did." On cross examination, appellant described his attempts to put the fire o ut until the firemen arrived, which was "almost instantly." Mr. Medley, the owner of United Auto Wrecker, who was present in his offi ce at the time of the fire and had purchased the damaged car body from t he insurance company, was called as the only witness for appellant. His te stimony is substantially the same as appellant's. He further testifi ed as follows: "Q. Mr. Medley, you are in the business of dismantling wrecked cars, is th at right? A. Yes, sir; for twelve years. Q. You have seen cars burned befo re? A. I have seen cars after they were burned. Q. Did you inspect this c ar at my request? A. Yes, sir; about two days ago. Q. Were you able to asc ertain where the fire may have started? A. Well, my judgment is that it st arted in the forward part behind the firewall and in front of the front se at. Q. Do you have an opinion as to how the fire started? A. No sir." In his cross examination he described in detail the condition of the car a fter the fire. In the course of his testimony, he stated: "A. Well, the complete front end that would be from the cowl forward was n ot damaged, we sold that. The back from the window, the rearmost window ba ck to the end of the deck was not burned up, but the middle of the car fr om the cowl to the back of the back glass was gutted almost completely exc ept for the very back of the back seat where there was some tufts of uphol stery material. Q. In other words, the damage was about in the area of t he car where the front seat is, is that correct? A. It would be more conce ntrated under or near the dash or the cowling. Q. Do you remember the cond ition of the motor when you bought the car back? A. When we bought the ca r? Q. Yes. A. There was no mechanical damage, that is in reference to t he block or the cast iron parts, but there was some Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 471 damage as I recall to the electrical parts which would include the wirin g, etc. Q. The motor itself? A. The motor itself was all right. Q. In fa ct that is the reason you bought it back and paid that much? A. We boug ht the car for the front sheet metal and for the engine, the rest w as of no value." Thus this case comes within an exception to the general presumption, th at is, the presumption of liability is rebutted when the loss is sho wn to have been caused by fire. The result is that the trial court's judgm ent must be reversed. [3] Here the damage was not of a kind that ordinarily does not occur witho ut negligence. In Grange v. Finlay, 58 Wn. (2d) 528, 364 P. (2d) 234 (196 1) (which did not involve a bailment), we discussed the question of the qu antum of proof of negligence necessary to establish liability in connecti on with a fire. At page 531, this court said: "Negligence cannot be assumed merely because the evidence shows that a fi re occurred or an accident happened. Cambro v. Snook, 43 Wn. (2d) 609, 2 62 P. (2d) 767. As we said in that case, it must be established by eviden ce or by legitimate inference from the established facts. "Here the proof of the cause of the fire necessarily rested upon circumsta ntial evidence. In regard to such evidence, this court has said: "'The rule is well established that the existence of a fact or facts cann ot rest in guess, speculation, or conjecture. It is also the rule that t he one having the affirmative of an issue does not have to make pro of to an absolute certainty. It is sufficient if his evidence affords ro om for men of reasonable minds to conclude that there is a greater probabi lity that the thing in question, such as the occurrence of a fire, happen ed in such a way as to fix liability upon the person charged therewith th an it is that it happened in a way for which a person charged would n ot be liable. In applying the circumstantial evidence submitted to pro ve a fact, the trier of fact must recognize the distinction between that w hich is mere conjecture and what is a reasonable inference.' Home Ins. C o. of New York v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 18 Wn. (2d) 798, 140 P. (2d) 50 7, 147 A.L.R. 849, quoted with approval in Cambro v. Snook, supra. "A corollary of this rule is that, if there is nothing more substanti al to proceed upon than two or more conjectural theories, under one or mo re of which a defendant would 472 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d) be liable, and under one or more of which there would be no liability up on him, a jury will not be permitted to conjecture how the accident occurr ed. Gardner v. Seymour, 27 Wn. (2d) 802, 180 P. (2d) 564." Appellant fully disclosed all information within his knowledge as to the o rigin of the fire. We have set forth the salient parts of the evidence pro duced by him. In our opinion, he explained the cause of the damage to t he full extent that was reasonably possible under the circumstances. The t rial court held that this was not enough and that appellant had the burd en of proving a negative, to wit, that the fire was not caused by his negl igence. We hold that under the circumstance of this case the burden, at the clo se of all the evidence, was upon respondent to establish, by a preponderan ce of the evidence, that the fire was caused by appellant's negligence. Th ere must be some evidence produced by the bailor from which negligence c an be found. Of course, the bailor need not prove negligence to an absolu te certainty. The trial court found, or concluded, that neither party h ad established the cause of the fire. It granted respondent judgment for t he reason that appellant had failed to establish, by a preponderance of t he evidence, that the fire did not result from his own negligence. In o ur opinion, the trial court erred in so holding. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed with instructions to dismiss the act ion. OTT, C. J., FINLEY, WEAVER, and HAMILTON, JJ., concur.	CHALOUPKA, Chester Carl (I1342)
99	At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.	Living (I1425)
100		JINDRA, Frank (I21)

Notes

Linked to

"Illinois, Cook County Deaths, 1871-1998," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N7WR-TJ6 : 8 March 2018), John Kohout in entry for James Kohout, 14 Feb 1914; citing , Cook, Illinois, United States, source reference cn 4371, record number 46, Cook County Courthouse, Chicago; FHL microfilm 1,239,968.

KOHOUT, James (I6919)

"Illinois, Cook County Deaths, 1878-1994," database, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGNF-BSS6 : 18 March 2018), Edward Chaloupka in entry for Alice A Kouba, 14 Jan 1986; citing Melrose Park, Cook, Illinois, United States, source reference , record number , Cook County Courthouse, Chicago; FHL microfilm .

CHALOUPKA, Alice A. (I1343)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Family: GREER, Ralph Robert / Living (F889)

"Maryland Marriages, 1666-1970", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F4JW-7ZX : 16 January 2020), Joseph Eckart, 1880.

Family: ECKART, Joseph Franklin / FOWLER, Ellen Mason (F2445)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Living (I2280)

"The Antigo Daily Journal"
Antigo, Langlade Co., WI
Friday, September 28, 2001.

NORMAN FRONEK

Norman Fronek, Antigo, died Thursday, Sept. 27, 2001 at home under the came of LeRoyer Hospice. He was 87 years old.

He was born on July 1, 1914, in the town of Ackley, a son of the late John and Emma (Honzik) Fronek.

On Sept. 9, 1939 he married Hilda Frisch at Peace Lutheran Church in Antigo. She preceded him in death on Dec. 17, 1996.

Mr. Fronek graduated from Antigo High School in 1932. He attended the Langlade County Normal School and the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point.

He taught school until 1950 and owned and operated a dairy farm.

Mr. Fronek served on the Langlade County Board and was one of the original aldermen of the Antigo City Council as well as a member of the school board.

He also served on the board of the American Dairy Association, the Farmer's Home Administration and the Badger Breeders Cooperative. He was director at Production Credit Association, as well as president of Antigo Milk Products Cooperative.

Mr. Fronek was a member of Peace Lutheran Church.

Survivors include two daughters, Diane (James) Block, Spring Valley, Minn., Janice (Merritt) Schmidt, Gresham; three sons, David (Karlynn) Fronek, Edina, Minn., Tom (Patricia) Fronek, Menasha, and Dan (Kirsten) Fronek, Woodbury, Minn.; 10 grandchildren, two great grandchildren, a sister, Clara Steber, Polar, and a brother, Edward Fronek, Antigo.

In addition to his parents and wife, he was preceded in death by four brothers, Harry Sr., John Jr., Ervin and Raymond Fronek.

Funeral services will be held at 11:30 a.m. on Monday at Peace Lutheran Church. Rev. Joseph Marsh will officiate. Burial will be in Bohemian National Cemetery.

Visitation will be Sunday from 3 until 7 p.m. at the Strasser-Roller Funeral Home and Monday from 10:30 a.m. until the time of services at the church.

A memorial has been established in Mr. Fronek's name.

FRONEK, Norman (I2571)

"Wisconsin Death Index, 1820-1907," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VJPQ-ZQB : 12 December 2014), Ernest F Pfennig, 26 Jul 1892; from "Wisconsin Deaths, 1820-1907," database, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : 2000); citing p. 0211, volume 16, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, reel 074, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, Vital Records Division, Madison.

PFENNIG, Ernst F. (I1117)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Family: Living / Living (F548)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Family: Living / Living (F231)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Family: Living / Living (F1711)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Family: Living / Living (F2258)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Family: Living / ECKART, Anna (F1840)

(First publication June 26, 1890.)
STATE OF WISCONSIN-MANITOWOC COUNTY. In Probate.
In the matter of the estate of William Menicke (sic) deceased.
On reading and filing the petition of Charles Menicke, of the town of Two Rivers, Manitowoc county, Wisconsin, representing among other things that William Menicke, late of said town and county, on the 3d day of November, A.D., 1889, at said town in said county, died intestate, leaving goods, chattels and estate within this state, and that the said petitioner is a brother and heir at law of said deceased, and praying that administration of said estate be to Charles Menicke granted, it is ordered that said petition be heard before this court, on Tuesday, the 22nd day of July, A.D., 1890, at 10 o'clock a.m., at my office in said county.

Ordered further, that notice thereof be given to the heirs of said deceased, and to all persons interest, by publishing a copy of this order for three successive weeks, prior to said day of hearing, in the Manitowoc Pilot, a weekly newspaper published at said city in said county.

Dated at Manitowoc, the 23d day of June, A.D. 1890.
Emil Baensch, County Judge.
Manitowoc Pilot, Thursday, July 3, 1890 P. 2

MEINEKE, William W. (I27)

(From the Manitowoc Co. Chronicle, Tuesday, Nov. 17, 1885):
Married:- At the home of the bride's parents, on Saturday, November 14,
1885, Justice O'Hara officiating, Mr. Henry Kempfer of Gibson and Miss Emma Blum of Mishicott. The bride is the eldest daughter of our esteemed townsman, Wm. Blum Esq. and is a young woman of excellent qualities of head and heart. The groom is a well-to-do young farmer of Gibson and seems to be in every way worthy of the fair one who has given him her heart and hand. That each returning year may bring them a fuller measure
of happiness and prosperity than the one that went before, is the heartfelt wish of their numerous friends.

KEMPFERT, Heinrich C. (I1034)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Living (I5445)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Living (I4511)

001238Kramer - John Trapp Kramer Jr 83 Died Thursday February 28 20 02 at Home In Cocoa Fla. He was A retiree of the Us Corps of Engineer s. He worked in Tenn, Va, N Mex, La, and Fla. He was a captain in the ar my In World War II serving in N Africa and Italy repairing and building mi litary bridges. After the war he returned to LSU and graduated in 19 48 as a civil engineer, He was the son of the late John T Kramer Sr And A nita Wenholz Kramer.

He is survived by his wife Mary C Kramer, two sons John T Kramer III, Pa ul M Kramer and his daughter Gini K Goldman. He is also survived by two s isters Joyce K Thompson and Janet K Heaton. He was the brother of the la te Harry 'Hap' Kramer, June K Bernhardt, Marjory Kramer, and half-broth er of Izola K Nichols. He was buried in Cocoa Beach Fla The Times-Picayu ne 04/20

KRAMER, John Trapp Jr. (I4953)

001907Audibert - Eleonora Barbier Audibert, a homemaker, died Saturday at Northshore Medical Center in Slidell. She was 91.

Mrs. Audibert was born in New Orleans and lived in Slidell for three years. Survivors include her son, Leon Audibert; two daughters, Vilma Dreux and Rose Terry; 18 grandchildren; and 24 great-grandchildren.

A funeral service will be held Tuesday at 2 p.m. at Jacob Schoen & Son Funeral Home, 3827 Canal St., New Orleans.

Burial will be in Greenwood Cemetery.

Times Picayune 09-02-1991

BARBIER, Eleanora (I6185)

02 July 1908 (From the correspondent in Mishicott, 30 June)

Mrs. W. BLUM, accompanied by her granddaughter, Miss L. NOCKER, spent last week in Algoma visiting relatives.

WULF, Dorothea (I1026)

1865 name was listed as Matilda
1870 name was listed as Louisa

FREITAG, Matilda Louise (I2865)

1870 census Manitowoc County

1 29 6 6 Frank Lainhart 40 M Farmer 2500 500 Prussia
1 30 6 6 Mary Lainhart 32 F Keeps House____Prussia
Frank Lainhart 8 Prussia
Cathrine Lainhart 6 Prussia

LENHARDT, Franz Sr. (I815)

19 Sept 1901 alternate date, source unknown

Family: JONES, John Sr / THOMPSON, Relia Ruthie (F1919)

1900 Census

KEMPFERT, Heinrich C. (I1034)

1900 Census Frank is living with his sister Mary in the Town of Mishicot, page 14 Lines 71-74

JINDRA, Frank (I21)

1900 Census living with them
Name: Bennie Montgomery
Home in 1900: Hartland, Freeborn, Minnesota
Age: 9
Birth Date: Mar 1891
Birthplace: Wisconsin
Race: White
Ethnicity: American
Relationship to head-of-house: Step Son
[Grandson]
Father's Birthplace: Wisconsin
Mother's Birthplace: Wisconsin
Marital Status: Single

Article published in the paper describing their life on their 63 anniversary.
Sunday Tribune, The | Albert Lea, Minnesota | Sunday, November 01, 1953 | Page 9

Couple Find Hard Work
Key To Long Married Life
Mr. and Mrs. John Eckart, who were married in New Richland, Oct. 27, 1890, observed their 63rd wedding anniversary quietly Tuesday.

Mrs. Eckart, an energetic 81 years old, passed up a bus ride that afternoon to walk from downtown Albert Lea to their home at 911 Bridge Ave., after a shopping trip.

She often walks home from services at Salem Lutheran church, she said.

Visitors who came to help them observe the anniversary kept, the couple up late Tuesday night. Mrs. Eckart was up early the next morning, though, cleaning house, and making plans for a trip to Wisconsin.

She anticipated the trip to Antigo, Wis., with her daughter Friday, would require about 7 hours driving

"It took me two weeks to make that trip by wagon when I came to Minnesota," her husband recalled. Eckart, who is 89, did not accompany his wife to the town which was once his home. Because his legs bother him, he can not be as active as Mrs, Eckart, he explained. Both agree they've worked hard during their lives.

The couple met in the 80's when both were working at the Chris Jensen farm between New Richland and Hartland. Jenson had persuaded Eckart, who had struck out on his own in the logging region o£ Wisconsin at the age of 16, to come with him after relatives wrote Jenson that land in the area was cheap.

Jenson acquired a farm, and Eckart went to work for him. He met ais future wife on that same farm. Ida Bertha Moldenhauer, pretty, curly - barred daughter of a neighboring farmer, was hired to do housework in the Jenson home for $1.50 a week.

"And I did the washing by hand, with only a washboard," she recalls now.

Jenson lost both his hired man and hired girl when the couple were married.

They started out their married life on a rented farm In the area. Included in the deal was the use of eight cows for $10 a year, Eckart recalls.

After a couple of years, the owner told Eckart that he had only $200 in the farm himself (it was covered by two mortgages) and suggested that he buy it Eckart bought the farm, and in a few years was able to build a house to replace the shack the couple had lived in, and a new barn. Discouraged at one time about 45 years ago, by a hailstorm that ruined crops, the Eckarts moved to South Dakota, found they didn't like it there, and returned to farm four miles outside Albert Lea. About 17 years ago they moved to their present home.

The couple have six children, 15 grandchildren, and five great grandchildren. One son, Elmer, died in 1935.

A daughter, Mrs. Albert (Agnes) Dubberstein, lives in Armstrong and another daughter, Mrs. Edward (Alice) BaRluan, lives in New Richland. Their sons are: Emil, of Austin, Walter of Bancroft, Erwin at home, and George, who lives on the home farm.

Mrs, Eckart complains that arthritis in her hands prevents her from doing as much work as she would like to do, but she still does her own housework, gets up at 5 o'clock on summer mornings to work in her large garden, and does lots of canning.

At one time, when her children were small, physicians in a Roches-ter hospital, did not expect her to recover from an operation. Four years ago, she was in critical condition following a stroke.

"I believe God sets a time for everybody to go, and my time has not come," she said. "But if there's anything that keeps me alive, I'd say it's just work."

Her husband nodded agreement.

ECKART, John Nepomucene (I5475)

1900 Census shows Andrew is naturalized

BOUDA, Onrej (I1370)

1900 Census shows immigration 1867 here 33 years

PELISHEK, Mary (I5367)

1900 John Lived with his Brother Wenzel in Mishicott Township according to the 1900 census

Activities for past week Sheboygan Press December 7, 1918 page 4 Joseph Ginzel to John Jindra, lot 9 blk 254, Sheboygan $1 Was Joseph Marie's brother or father?

Sheboygan Press (Sheboygan, Wisconsin) > 1918 > December > 7
Joseph Ginzel transfer of property to John Jindra, lot 9 blk 254 Sheboygan, $1

JINDRA, John Francis Sr. (I436)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Living (I7473)

1910 Census Family 261 Household 266 Town of Kossuth Married 6 years 28 years old Mary his wife, Roman his son

From a Green Bay Newspaper Funeral Services

Emil A. Radey-At Blaney Funeral Home. Rosary 7:30 tonight, Msgr. Henry C. Head. Funeral services 11:15 a.m. Thursday, St. Patrick Church. Fort Howard Cemetery. Mr. Radey died early Tuesday Morning at his residence after a long illness. He as a member of St. Patrick Holy Name Society.

From another paper December 19, 1961

Emil A. Radey, 80, 422 N. Maple Ave., died early this morning at his residence after a long illness. He was a member of St. Patrick Holy Name Society.

Survivors include his wife, the former Margaret F. Francart; two sons, Jerry J. and Harvey E., both of Green Bay; three grandchildren;two great-grandchildren; one brother, Frank, Manitowoc; two sisters, Mrs. Ann Ginzel, Manitowoc, and Mrs. Richard Stangel, Kewaunee. His first wife died in 1951.

Friends may call at Blaney Funeral Home after 2 p.m. Wednesday. The Rosary will be recited at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday by Msgr. Henry C. Head. Funeral services will be at 11:15 a.m. Thursday at St. Patrick Church with burial in Fort Howard Cemetery.

RADEY, Emil Anton (I2395)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Living (I1380)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Living (I4744)

1970 > June > 26 Herald Times Reporter

Mott

Mrs. Sam Mott, 71, of Rt. 1, Mishicot, Town of Gibson died Thursday aftern oon at Two Rivers Municipal Hospital.

Funeral services will be at 2 p.m. Sunday at Melnik Presbyterian Church, t he Rev. Charles Freuden officiating. Burial will be in Knollwood Memori al Gardens, Town of Kossuth.

Mrs. Mott, nee Julia Chaloupka, was born Feb. 15, 1899, in the Town of Gib son, a daughter of the late Thomas and Ann Chaloupka. She was married Sep t. 12, 1922 to Sam Mott, after which the couple became engaged in farmi ng in the Town of Gibson. She was a member of the Melnick Presbyterian Ch urch and the Auxiliary of the Kempen-Staudinger-Terens Post, Veterans of F oreign Wars of Mishicot.

Besides her husband she leaves four daughters, Mrs. Otto (Lucille) Robins on of Rt. 2, Kewaunee, Mrs. Chester (Grace) Novak of Rt. 2 Manitowoc, Mr s. Guardy (Jeanette) Rezek of Rt. 2 Two Rivers, and Mrs. Paul (Edith) Ande rson of Two Rivers; two sons, Alvin of Two Rivers, and Robert of Rt. 1 Kew aunee; a brother Adoph Chaloupka and a step-brother, Edwin Chaloupka of R t. 2 Two Rivers; 25 grandchildren and 14 great grandchildren. A sister a nd three grandsons preceded her in death.

Friends may call at Lambert Funeral Home, Mishicot, after 3 p.m.until no on sunday when the casket will be taken to the church where the body wi ll lie in state until the time of services.

CHALOUPKA, Julia A. (I1358)

21- ST. HUBERT CATHOLIC CEMETERY-LINCOLN TOWNSHIP
Located NW 1/4 Section 5
Parish cemetery of St. Hubert's Church. Maintained in good condition by parishioners In Rosiere on corner of Cty X & Church roads.

21 GASPARD Jos. xx xxx xxxx 14 Aug 1895 Age 71/ChRcds./NO STONE

GASPARD, Francois Joseph (I985)

33 Violet Osier Mercury

AUDIBERT, Valentine L. Jr. (I6280)

34 years old at death California Death Index, 1940-1997 Record Name: AUGUSTINE, GREGORY DENNIS Social Security #: 394641513 Sex: MALE Birth Date: 20 Dec 1955 Birthplace: WISCONSIN Death Date: 3 Dec 1990 Death Place: ORANGE Mother's Maiden Name: RADEY Father's Surname: Source Information: Ancestry.com. California Death Index, 1940-1997. [database online] Provo, UT: Ancestry.com, 2000. Original electronic data: State of California. California Death Index, 1940-1997. Sacramento, CA: State of California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, 19--.

AUGUSTINE, Gregory Dennis (I1274)

340-10-6839

RAPER, Winton Theopilous (I5167)

387-24-1398

BLANK, Edna (I4791)

391-60-5176

ZIEMKE, Myrtle Viola (I5818)

395-12-5267

LORENZ, Helen Dorothy (I1364)

397-10-6034

TESS, Wallace Reinhold Sr. (I5183)

4 May 1970

Chicago Tribune

Traxel
Leonard P. Traxel of Rolling Meadows, beloved husband of Esther, nee Hel s; dear father of Warren L. (Marilyn) Traxel; two grandchildren; loving br other of George and the late Richard. Visitation Monday after 3 p.m. at O ehler Funeral Home, Lee at Perry street, Des Plaines, where services wi ll be held Tuesday, 1 p.m. Interment Acacia Park Cemetery. In lieu of flo wers, contributions to the First Congregational Church of Des Plaines or B ethany United Church of Christ, 4250 N. Paulina street, Chicago, 824-5155.

TRAXEL, Leonard (I2749)

433-03-1707

WENHOLZ, Esther (I6091)

436-01-9192

LIVAUDAIS, Eugene (I6092)

46th Congress 2d Session House of Representatives
Report No. 1567

Albert Freitag.
June 4, 1880-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. Barber, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following
REPORT:
[To accompany bill H.R. 1151.]

The committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 1151) for the relief of Albert Freitag, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report:

That the claimant, Albert Freitag, is a resident of Nicollet, Nicollet County, State of Minnesota, and resided there during the year 1862.

The testimony of Mr. Freitag shows that on the 25th day of August, 1862, he was on his way to Saint Peter, in said Nicollet County; that at the time he owned and was driving a span of gray horses, three years old; that said span of horses were in good condition; that while driving he was met by Capt. E. St. Julien Cox, who had command of a company, marching to the relief of New Ulm, which was at that time besieged by hostile Indians of the Sioux Nation or tribe. Captain Cox as an officer iin command of State forces, took from the claimant his team, and pressed the same into service of the volunteers he was then leading against the Indians; that Cox gave claimant a voucher or certificate, setting forth that his team had been taken for the use of the volunteers in the defense of New Ulm. In two weeks from the time said team was taken, claimant found them at Saint Peter, reduced in flesh, saddle-galled, and so poor that they could not be used until sometime in the winter; that in consequence thereof he was compelled to hire a team to do his fall plowing. The claimant testifies that the voucher given him by Captain Cox was burned up with his father's house, and for a long time he thought he could not collect any compensation because he had lost the voucher. He has, however, furnished a certificate from Captain Cox, who is now judge of the ninth judicial district of Minnesota, certifying that he took the horses belonging to Mr. Freitag for the use of the volunteers he was in command of. The claimant has also produced a certificate from ten of his neighbors who were well acquainted with him at the time the horses were taken, and who state they believe the facts to be true as stated, and the use of the property with the amount claimed.

Your committee are of the the opinion that the facts as stated by the claimant are true, and that he is entitled to relief in the sum of $65. They therefore recommend that the bill be amended by inserting said amount and put upon its passage.

FREITAG, Albert O. (I2833)

477-22-2491

VITT, Edna Elizabeth (I5152)

483-36-3264

SPORLEDER, Albert Arthur (I4477)

63 Wn.2d 463, CHESTER CHALOUPKA, Respondent, v. PAUL CYR, Appellant

[No. 36627. Department Two. Supreme Court December 19, 1963.]

CHESTER CHALOUPKA, Respondent, v. PAUL CYR, Appellant.<*>

[1] Bailment - Duty of Bailee - Care of Chattels. Under the ordinary bailm ent, the bailee is not an insurer, and is liable for loss or damage to a b ailed chattel only where he has failed to exercise ordinary care under t he circumstances.

[2] Same - Presumptions - Negligence. When a bailor shows that his bail ed property was not returned or was returned damaged, he has establish ed a prima facie case, or raised a presumption that will, at least, car ry him past a nonsuit; however, where it is shown by either party that t he loss was caused by fire or other cause which does not, by itself, indic ate the negligence of the bailee, the presumption of liability is rebutte d, and the burden of proving negligence remains on the bailor.

[3] Same - Evidence - Sufficiency. While a bailor need not prove a bailee 's negligence to an absolute certainty in order to recover for a bailed ch attel destroyed by fire, he must, nevertheless, establish such negligen ce by a preponderance of the evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 14900 1, Frank Hale, J., entered May 7, 1962. Reversed.

Action for damages to personal property. Defendant appeals from a judgme nt in favor of the plaintiff.

Keesling & Lambert and James J. Keesling, for appellant.

Charles W. Johnson and Brooks K. Johnson, for respondent.

DONWORTH, J. -

This is an appeal by defendant bailee from a judgment entered upon plainti ff's claim. The complaint alleged that plaintiff delivered his Oldsmobi le automobile to defendant, a body repairman, for the purpose of having se veral minor repairs made thereto, and that, while it was in defendant's po ssession, the car caught fire because of defendant's negligence, thus caus ing a total loss. The answer denied any negligence, and affirmatively alle ged that the fire was caused by "a short in the electrical

* Reported in 387 P. (2d) 740.

[2] See Ann. 9 A.L.R. 570, 71 A.L.R. 773, 151 A.L.R. 725; Am. Jur. (2d), B ailments § 315.

464 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d)

system." The trial to the court sitting without a jury resulted in a judgm ent for a total of $1,037.60, including stipulated damages ($1,000) and co sts ($37.60).

There is no substantial issue of fact in this case. Respondent (bailor) de livered his automobile to appellant (bailee) to have certain minor repai rs made. While in the bailee's possession, prior to his doing any wo rk on the car, the vehicle was destroyed by fire from an unknown cause.

The findings of fact of the trial court reflect the essential facts of t he case. Of the 10 findings of fact, only No. 9 (which is really a conclus ion of law) is challenged by appellant. The following are the trial court 's findings of fact, which are important to this appeal:

"II. That on and prior to July 11, 1961 the Defendant operated an automobi le repair shop in Pierce County, Washington under the name of Frenchie's B ody and Fender Shop.

"III. That on and prior to July 11, 1961, the Plaintiff was the own er of a 1958 Oldsmobile 88 2-door sedan automobile.

"IV. That shortly prior to July 11, 1961, the Plaintiff and the Defenda nt entered into an oral agreement, whereby the Defendant engaged to perfo rm certain repairs to the Plaintiff's said automobile, and also engag ed to take the car to a specified radio repairman for the purpose of havi ng the radio in said car repaired; and that the parties agreed that the De fendant would be compensated for these services.

"V. That the Plaintiff delivered said automobile into the possession of t he Defendant at his place of business sometime during the afternoon of Ju ly 11, 1961, for the purpose of having repairs made as above stated; th at thereafter, on that day or the day following, the Defendant accepted fu ll time employment at an auto wrecking establishment near Tacoma, whi ch is located 10 or 12 miles distant from his own place of business, and w hich is located across the street from the place of business of the rad io repairman who was to repair the radio of the Plaintiff's car.

"VI. That on July 14, 1961 the Defendant drove the Plaintiff's said automo bile from his own place of business to his place of employment, arriving s hortly before 9:00 o'clock in the morning; that the Defendant parked sa id automobile on an outside parking lot on the premises where he was emplo yed; that the Defendant worked during that

Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 465

entire day in an open area a short distance away, at a place in full vi ew of said automobile; that shortly before 4:30 in the afternoon of said d ay, the Defendant discovered the Plaintiff's said automobile to be on fir e; and that said fire was ultimately extinguished by the fire department.

"VII. That the Plaintiff's said automobile was in good operating conditi on at the time it was left with the Defendant; that as a result of said fi re, the automobile was almost totally destroyed, and was thereafter sold f or salvage; and that by stipulation the parties have agreed that the amou nt of the damage to said automobile resulting from the fire is $1,000.00.

"VIII. That after the fire was extinguished, the upholstery in the front s eat was found to be completely burned, and that in the back seat was subst antially burned; that there was considerable fire damage to and under t he dash on the inside; that the outside paint was severely damaged from t he lower glass line up, and from the cowl to the rear of the car, but w as not damaged forward of the cowl or on the hood; that all of the glass w as broken or damaged beyond repair; and that there was no damage to the mo tor or the front end.

"IX. That the fire started somewhere in the passenger compartment; that ne ither party has established the cause of the fire; and that the Defenda nt has failed to establish that the fire did not result from his negligenc e."

The trial court also entered the following conclusion of law:

"III. That the liability of the Defendant results from the presumpti on of negligence arising from his failure to deliver the automobile ba ck to the Plaintiff in good condition, and his failure to show by eviden ce that the damage to said automobile did not result from his negligence.

The legal issue to be decided on this appeal arises from finding of fact N o. 9 (which is really a conclusion of law) and from conclusion of law N o. 3. This issue can be briefly stated: who has the burden of proving negl igence of the bailee when only the delivery of possession to the bailee a nd subsequent damage to the property are shown.

[1] Ordinarily the rule is that a bailee is only liable for loss or dama ge to a bailed chattel where he has failed to exercise ordinary care und er the circumstances; the

466 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d)

bailee is not an insurer. Jones v. Warner, 57 Wn. (2d) 647, 359 P. (2d) 1 60 (1961); Ramsden v. Grimshaw, 23 Wn. (2d) 864, 162 P. (2d) 901 (1945); B urley v. Hurley-Mason Co., 111 Wash. 415, 191 Pac. 630 (1920); St. Paul Fi re & Marine Ins. Co. v. Chas. H. Lilly Co., 48 Wn. (2d) 528, 295 P. (2d) 2 99 (1956).

In the Jones case, the rule is stated as follows:

"A bailee is not an insurer of property placed in his charge, but is on ly required to exercise ordinary care. Carley v. Allen, 31 Wn. (2d) 730, 1 98 P. (2d) 827. But where property not perishable in nature is deliver ed to a bailee in good condition, and is not returned or is returned damag ed, a presumption arises of negligence on the part of the bailee and cas ts upon him the burden of showing the exercise of ordinary care. Burl ey v. Hurley-Mason Co., 111 Wash. 415, 191 Pac. 630. However, the presumpt ion does not arise unless it appears that the subject of the bailme nt is of such a nature that loss or injury could not ordinarily have occur red without negligence on the part of the bailee. Patterson v. Wenatchee C anning Co., 53 Wash. 155, 101 Pac. 721."

[2] The rule followed in numerous decisions in this state on the questi on of burden of proof in bailment cases where property is lost or damag ed while in the bailee's possession, is that a prima facie case, or presum ption, is raised when the bailor shows nonreturn, loss, damage or destruct ion to bailed property. Althoff v. System Garages, Inc., 59 Wn. (2d) 86 0, 371 P. (2d) 48 (1962); Jones v. Warner, supra; Ramsden v. Grimshaw, sup ra; Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 84 P. (2d) 681, 119 A.L. R. 788 (1938); Burley v. Hurley-Mason Co., supra; Russell v. Union Mac h. & Supply Co., 88 Wash. 532, 153 Pac. 341 (1915); Parker v. Washington T ug & Barge Co., 85 Wash. 575, 148 Pac. 896 (1915); Kingsley v. Standard Lb r. Co., 84 Wash. 189, 146 Pac. 369 (1915); Colburn v. Washington State A rt Ass'n, 80 Wash. 662, 141 Pac. 1153 (1914); Patterson v. Wenatchee Canni ng Co., 53 Wash. 155, 101 Pac. 721 (1909); Pregent v. Mills, 51 Wash. 18 7, 98 Pac. 328 (1908).

Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 467

However, if the bailee can show that he has exercised due care or can sh ow the loss was caused by burglary, larceny, fire, or other causes whi ch of themselves do not point to negligence on the part of the baile e, he can rebut the presumption. Jones v. Warner, supra; Dohrmann Hotel Su pply Co. v. Owl Transfer & Storage Co., 19 Wn. (2d) 522, 143 P. (2d) 44 1, 149 A.L.R. 1108 (1943); Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., supra; Birk v. B remerton, 137 Wash. 119, 241 Pac. 678 (1925); McDonald v. Wm. D. Perkins & Co., 133 Wash. 622, 234 Pac. 456, 40 A.L.R. 859 (1925); Harland v. Pe E ll State Bank, 122 Wash. 289, 210 Pac. 681 (1922); Firestone Tire & Rubb er Co. v. Pacific Transfer Co., 120 Wash. 665, 208 Pac. 55, 26 A.L.R. 2 17 (1922); Colburn v. Washington State Art Ass'n, supra; Patterson v. Wena tchee Canning Co., supra. By rebutting the presumption, the burden is on t he bailor to show that negligence of the bailee resulted in the loss or da mage to the bailed property.

One bailment case states that presumption is sufficient only to get the pl aintiff past a nonsuit. Murphy v. Schwark, 117 Wash. 461, 201 Pac. 757 (19 21). This is the usual result reached when dealing with presumptions.

The weight of authority (8 Am. Jur. (2d), Bailments § 315) appears to be t hat where the bailor shows that the failure of the bailee to return the su bject of the bailment in its original condition was because it was damag ed or destroyed by fire while in the bailee's possession, the burden of pr oving negligence remains on the bailor.

In Birk v. Bremerton, 137 Wash. 119, 241 Pac. 678 (1925) the plaintiff's g oods were stored in the city's warehouse when they were destroyed by fi re of unknown origin. In holding that the city was not liable, this cou rt said, at page 121:

"The law with reference to the liability of warehousemen is well settle d. A warehouseman is bound to exercise ordinary diligence only. Colbu rn v. Washington State Art Ass'n, 80 Wash. 662, 141 Pac. 1153, L.R.A. 191 5A 594. When, however, it is shown that the loss is occasioned by larcen y, burglary, fire, or other cause which of themselves do not

468 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d)

point to negligence on the part of the bailee, the bailee has then met t he prima facie case made against him by his failure to return the goods, a nd the burden of proof as to negligence then rests upon the plainti ff as in any other case of alleged negligence. Colburn v. Washington Sta te Art Ass'n, supra; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pacific Trans. Co., 1 20 Wash. 665, 208 Pac. 55, 26 A.L.R. 217; Harland v. Pe Ell State Bank, 1 22 Wash. 289, 210 Pac. 681; McDonald v. Perkins & Co., 133 Wash. 622, 2 34 Pac. 456.

"In the last cited case, we said that appellant in that instance did not s how the loss to fall within any of the exceptions as to the liability of t he bailee upon failure to return the goods, of fire, theft, leakage, or a ct of God. In this case, appellant brought itself within the recognized ex ceptions as to liability of a bailee for storage, and comes within the ru le stated in the foregoing cases.

In the present case, respondent produced as a witness a captain of Pier ce County Fire District No. 2, who was called to the parking lot and arriv ed while the car was still smoldering. He examined the car thoroughly aft er the fire was extinguished and testified to its condition. He was examin ed by respondent's counsel and stated, in part, as follows:

"Q. Does your Fire Department make any investigation of these thin gs as to the possible cause of the fires? A. No, we do at times, but bei ng rather short handed we are limited. Q. Do you know if any investigati on was made as to the cause of this particular fire? A. No, I don't. Not t hat I know of. Q. Is there anything in your official report that would ind icate the cause of the fire? A. No. Q. Did you make any tests as to the wi ring system or the electrical system of any kind? A. No."

Thus respondent, in his case in chief, showed that appellant's failu re to return the car in its original condition was due to this fire. Conse quently, he had the burden of proving that the fire was caused by appellan t's negligence, which he failed to do.

As to why he failed to redeliver the car to respondent in the same conditi on as when he received, appellant made the following explanation:

That the car was delivered to him at his shop (which was located on his ho me property) on or about July 11,

Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 469

1961. The parties agreed that, for $20, appellant was to fix a dent in t he dash and one in the bumper, and to drive the car to Mr. Brown's radio r epair shop. As appellant was not a radio repairman, the radio was to be re moved and repaired by Mr. Brown, who does radio repair work only in his sp are time (evenings and week ends).

About that time, appellant accepted temporary full-time employment with Un ited Auto Wrecker, whose place of business was across the street from M r. Brown's place of business.

July 14, 1961, appellant drove the car to the place of business of Unit ed Auto Wrecker when he went to work there about 9 a.m. and parked it in t he parking lot. He did not smoke any cigarettes while he was in the ca r. He worked outdoors where the car was in his range of vision all day. Be tween 4 and 4:30 p.m., the fire in the car occurred.

Appellant's testimony regarding it is as follows:

"Q. What first attracted your attention to the car? A. I was working and t hen all of a sudden I heard a horn blowing, so I looked around and I didn 't see anyone, so I kept on working and the horn kept on blowing; then a ll of a sudden I looked at the car and I see the windows were all blac k. I ran to the car and opened the door to see what was going on, and the re was an explosion, it must have knocked me about close to ten feet aw ay from the car. Q. Then what did you do? A. It burned the side of my fac e. Q. Then what did you do? A. Then I ran towards United Auto and told M r. Medley that I had a fire in the back and I needed some men to come o ut there and put it out. I picked up some water and ran back towards the c ar and Mr. Medley himself called the Fire Department. Q. Did Mr. Medley co me out? A. No, he had to look after the office. Q. The Fire Department h ad to put the fire out? A. Definitely, yes. Q. You describe it as almo st an explosion when you opened the door? A. As soon as I opened the do or that is when it blew up. Q. Did you look at the car later? A. I beg yo ur pardon? Q. Did you inspect the car after - ? A. After the fire was o ut I looked at it, yes. Q. Do you have any knowledge of where the fire sta rted? A. According to my knowledge, I would say that the fire started und er the dash somewhere. Q. You don't know where it started?

470 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d)

A. No. Q. Was all of the upholstery burned in the back seat? A. No, mo st of the fire was in front, the dash was all burned down, the windshie ld was all crinkled to sand. In the back seat there was still upholste ry in it. I would say that the fire was in the front part of the car. Q. A fter the fire did you report to Mr. Chaloupka? A. I did. It was the fir st thing I did."

On cross examination, appellant described his attempts to put the fire o ut until the firemen arrived, which was "almost instantly."

Mr. Medley, the owner of United Auto Wrecker, who was present in his offi ce at the time of the fire and had purchased the damaged car body from t he insurance company, was called as the only witness for appellant. His te stimony is substantially the same as appellant's. He further testifi ed as follows:

"Q. Mr. Medley, you are in the business of dismantling wrecked cars, is th at right? A. Yes, sir; for twelve years. Q. You have seen cars burned befo re? A. I have seen cars after they were burned. Q. Did you inspect this c ar at my request? A. Yes, sir; about two days ago. Q. Were you able to asc ertain where the fire may have started? A. Well, my judgment is that it st arted in the forward part behind the firewall and in front of the front se at. Q. Do you have an opinion as to how the fire started? A. No sir."

In his cross examination he described in detail the condition of the car a fter the fire. In the course of his testimony, he stated:

"A. Well, the complete front end that would be from the cowl forward was n ot damaged, we sold that. The back from the window, the rearmost window ba ck to the end of the deck was not burned up, but the middle of the car fr om the cowl to the back of the back glass was gutted almost completely exc ept for the very back of the back seat where there was some tufts of uphol stery material. Q. In other words, the damage was about in the area of t he car where the front seat is, is that correct? A. It would be more conce ntrated under or near the dash or the cowling. Q. Do you remember the cond ition of the motor when you bought the car back? A. When we bought the ca r? Q. Yes. A. There was no mechanical damage, that is in reference to t he block or the cast iron parts, but there was some

Dec. 1963] CHALOUPKA v. CYR 471

damage as I recall to the electrical parts which would include the wirin g, etc. Q. The motor itself? A. The motor itself was all right. Q. In fa ct that is the reason you bought it back and paid that much? A. We boug ht the car for the front sheet metal and for the engine, the rest w as of no value."

Thus this case comes within an exception to the general presumption, th at is, the presumption of liability is rebutted when the loss is sho wn to have been caused by fire. The result is that the trial court's judgm ent must be reversed.

[3] Here the damage was not of a kind that ordinarily does not occur witho ut negligence. In Grange v. Finlay, 58 Wn. (2d) 528, 364 P. (2d) 234 (196 1) (which did not involve a bailment), we discussed the question of the qu antum of proof of negligence necessary to establish liability in connecti on with a fire. At page 531, this court said:

"Negligence cannot be assumed merely because the evidence shows that a fi re occurred or an accident happened. Cambro v. Snook, 43 Wn. (2d) 609, 2 62 P. (2d) 767. As we said in that case, it must be established by eviden ce or by legitimate inference from the established facts.

"Here the proof of the cause of the fire necessarily rested upon circumsta ntial evidence. In regard to such evidence, this court has said:

"'The rule is well established that the existence of a fact or facts cann ot rest in guess, speculation, or conjecture. It is also the rule that t he one having the affirmative of an issue does not have to make pro of to an absolute certainty. It is sufficient if his evidence affords ro om for men of reasonable minds to conclude that there is a greater probabi lity that the thing in question, such as the occurrence of a fire, happen ed in such a way as to fix liability upon the person charged therewith th an it is that it happened in a way for which a person charged would n ot be liable. In applying the circumstantial evidence submitted to pro ve a fact, the trier of fact must recognize the distinction between that w hich is mere conjecture and what is a reasonable inference.' Home Ins. C o. of New York v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 18 Wn. (2d) 798, 140 P. (2d) 50 7, 147 A.L.R. 849, quoted with approval in Cambro v. Snook, supra.

"A corollary of this rule is that, if there is nothing more substanti al to proceed upon than two or more conjectural theories, under one or mo re of which a defendant would

472 CHALOUPKA v. CYR [63 Wn. (2d)

be liable, and under one or more of which there would be no liability up on him, a jury will not be permitted to conjecture how the accident occurr ed. Gardner v. Seymour, 27 Wn. (2d) 802, 180 P. (2d) 564."

Appellant fully disclosed all information within his knowledge as to the o rigin of the fire. We have set forth the salient parts of the evidence pro duced by him. In our opinion, he explained the cause of the damage to t he full extent that was reasonably possible under the circumstances. The t rial court held that this was not enough and that appellant had the burd en of proving a negative, to wit, that the fire was not caused by his negl igence.

We hold that under the circumstance of this case the burden, at the clo se of all the evidence, was upon respondent to establish, by a preponderan ce of the evidence, that the fire was caused by appellant's negligence. Th ere must be some evidence produced by the bailor from which negligence c an be found. Of course, the bailor need not prove negligence to an absolu te certainty. The trial court found, or concluded, that neither party h ad established the cause of the fire. It granted respondent judgment for t he reason that appellant had failed to establish, by a preponderance of t he evidence, that the fire did not result from his own negligence. In o ur opinion, the trial court erred in so holding.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed with instructions to dismiss the act ion.

OTT, C. J., FINLEY, WEAVER, and HAMILTON, JJ., concur.

CHALOUPKA, Chester Carl (I1342)

At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld.

Living (I1425)

100

JINDRA, Frank (I21)

Webmaster Message

We make every effort to document our research. If you have questions or have something you would like to add, please contact us by using the link to the left.

Jindra and Chaloupka Families

Notes

Quick Links

Contact Us

Webmaster Message