Industrial and occupational accidents reported to the 'Council during January involved. 197 persons. 'This number is high in view of the fact that work in industrial undertakings was interrupted through the Spring Festival celebrations. Eleven fatal les occurred, Nine' women were injured. Causes of 180 accidents are known with sume lent accuracy, and 113 were the subject of visits of investigation and of instruction a 0 prevention.
Classified by industries, the highest number, 41, took place in machinery and metal' trades. 28, "four fatal, occurred in the supply of electricity, water and gas; 22, one fatal, In textile industries; 21, two fatal, on the con struction of roads and buildings; 17, cone fatal, in the food, drinks and tobacco category: and 1, one fatal, in the printing and bookbinding group. were bequeathed by the defendant's former husband, Joseph, on which the plainti! hag no' dispute (see court Fecords of January 15 and 29, 1030). 'The last will made by Joseph states that he wishes the defendant to di pose of the property bequeathed to her in the way she deems ft and meet herself, 'According' to the veal meaning of the last will, obviously, the bequeather declared the things bequeathed to the defendants to be her privileged exclusive property. Accord. ing to the provisions of Art, 1010 and 1013 of the Civil Code, of course, it has to be considered as the exclusive property of the defendant and cannot be considered es the union property. It is hard to allege it to be the property originally had as stated in Art, 1017, Sections 1 and 3 of the came code. Therefore, the income borne by it of course' cannot be said belong to the plaintiff, The plaintiffs maintenance that It is enough for discharge of his debt on the basis of the fact that the income yielded. by the defendant's property is more than {$20,000 can also hardly' be said to be founded.
Generalizing the above statement, the defendant's demand thatthe adoption' of a separate property regime be declared on the basis of Art. 1010 Section 2 of the Civil Code cannot be said to be unjustified. As to the statement of the attorney for plaintiff that. it was arranged at the time of marriage that the property of the defendant should be managed by the plaintiff, 1et it go whether true, but, according to the above argument and statement, it can be found that the defendant's property should not be surrendered to the manayement of the plaintiff. Of course, there can be no need to Investigate' other evidence and the plaintiffs petition fas to. be. considered as without foundation, On the basis of the above, 1 come to the conclusion that the plaintitt's petition is without foundation and the defendant's counter-claim is. founded and have to be granted and dismissed separately and it is decided, fas decrees in accordance with Art. 78 the Code of Civil Procedure.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.