Hell On Wheels ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Hattie’s father Lars O. Waaler has a few interesting stories. In 1903 he was involved in a dispute with the Great Northern Railway Company that made it all the way to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Shortly after this incident he divorced his wife Karie and moved to Minneapolis, MN to run a hotel. Not long after that he became ill and returned to the Brandt, SD area where he died.
In the 1910 census he’s living in Balsam Lake, Polk County, WI. (Very close to the Minnesota border.) He is 54. Living with him is 68 year old Beret Pramhus who is listed as a servant.
7 years earlier he was the servant. For Berit Pramhus.
On 26 January, 1903 a crew for the Great Northern Railroad Company was constructing a snow fence on Berit’s land without her consent. She sent Lars out to stop them. Lars went out and demanded the fence be removed or he would destroy it. The foreman Henry Doust was not receptive to this idea, so Lars left and grabbed an axe. He returned and; “not only forbade the workmen from continuing to construct the fence, but laid his axe thereon, and threatened, if they continued, to destroy the fence”. For good measure he also threatened to destroy any future fences built by the crew.
The foreman then ordered one of the crew, a Mr. Edward Faust, to "go after" Lars. Mr. Faust obliged and severely beat him. Lars had one or more of his ribs broken and not surprisingly, he also bleed and became sore and swollen.
Lars sued the railroad for the sum of $1,500. The beating caused him great bodily harm, suffering, and injury, rendering him unable to perform manual labor.
The railroad company tried to claim that assaulting people was not in the job description. Since they never told the crew to beat anyone up, the railroad should not be held liable.
The case dragged on for a few years and made it’s way to the South Dakota Supreme Court. There are many versions of this online. Here’s some links.
1904 appeal by the railroad. (No mention of the axe in this version.)
Lars Wins his Lawsuit •••••••••••••••••••••••• Here’s a couple of articles. Minneapolis claims verdict gave him $941. Aberdeen, SD one day later claims verdict gave him $750.
Minneapolis Journal, 26 Nov 1906
Click Image for a larger view
Aberedeen Weekly News, 27 Nov 1906
Click Image for a larger view
Donna Langdon Family Research ••••••••
Here’s some more information from a granddaughter of Lars; Donna Langdon.
Hattie Wohler was born in Brandt, South Dakota. Her parents were Carrie and Lars Wohler. They farmed in the Brandt South Dakota area for several years. When Hattie and her sisters and brothers were young, her parents were divorced. Her father moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota where he operated a hotel. Her mother stayed on the farm with the children and continued to operate the farm with the help of her son Henry. In later years, after her father Lars became ill, he returned to the Brandt area where he died. Both Hattie’s parents are buried at the cemetery at Brandt, South Dakota.
Where did this story take place? ••••••••••
I didn’t think it would be an issue, but they seem to have wondered about it during the trial. There is an interview with a witness called on behalf of the plaintiff. They conclude; “It clearly appears from the evidence that Pramhus’ land was west of Watertown, and within the section in which Doust was foreman.”
Here’s a jpeg image of the interview with Mr. F. Jones.
Here’s a link to the full text. (Full book)
Supreme Court Rules - digitized by Google Books
Map of the area described in the interview.
Click Image for a larger view
It shouldn’t be a problem to find this. All we need to do is look at an old census record, county directory, plat map, tax records or something along those lines right? Not so quick. That leads us into the next section.
Who was Berit Pramhus? •••••••••••••••••••
Who was she and what happened to her? At first glance it looks like Lars left his wife for this woman. That’s probably not the case, but we are only left with speculation. Here’s what I’ve been able to find so far.
This man might have been her husband.
Nels M. PRAMHAUS.
Click Image for link to South Dakota Gravestones.
The name is transcribed as Pramhaus, but the headstone clearly reads Pramhus. He’s buried in Mount Hope Cemetery; Codington County, South Dakota.
He Died 19 Feb 1899; Age 67 years. The railroad incident took place 4 years later on 26 January, 1903.
In the 1910 census Beret Pramhus is 68 years old and listed as a widow. Lars is listed as divorced.
She died 9 January 1915 in Amery, Wisconsin. Amery is only a few miles from the location she was living with Lars at in the 1910 census. Lars is listed as the owner in 1914. He died in 1917. He must have moved back to South Dakota soon after she died.
Here’s her death notice in the “Polk County Ledger”.
Click Image for a larger view
Here’s Berith Pramhus’ Death listed in Church records. She was buried in Watertown, South Dakota. Same place as the Nels Pramhus above.
Waaler v. Great Northern Railway Co. ••••
(Supreme Court of South Dakota, June 24, 1908.)
NOTE:
Here’s a few passages that describe what happened. For the full legal descriptions use one of the links provided above.
1. Appeal and Error-Determination-Proceedings in Lower Court-Decision as law of case.
...plaintiff amended the complaint by adding allegations that plaintiff after being advised by defendant's section foreman and his crew, at the time of the assault, that they were instructed to construct a fence by defendant company, and proposed and intended so to do, notwithstanding plaintiff's protest for P., the owner of the land; that plaintiff said to the crew that he would remove such part of the fence then constructed if it was not removed, and would remove other fences on the land of P., and had with him an axe to tear down and remove the same, all for the purpose of preventing a trespass on P.'s land so being committed and threatened by defendant company by and through the section crew. Held, that such allegations showed that the assault on plaintiff was apparently for the purpose of continuing the work in the construction of the fence, and to prevent plaintiff from interfering therewith...
2. Master and Servant--Liabilities to third persons--Assault by servant.
Plaintiff was directed by the owner of certain land to go and forbid workmen on defendant's railroad from erecting a fence. Plaintiff went, and the workmen refused to desist, whereupon plaintiff procured an axe and returned to the place, and not only forbade the workmen from continuing to construct the fence, but laid his axe thereon, and threatened, if they continued, to destroy the fence, as fast as it was completed, whereupon one of the workmen committed an assault on plaintiff. Held, that the defendant was liable for the assault, under the rule making a master responsible for the acts of the servant within the general scope of the servant's employment while engaged in the master's business and in the furtherance thereof, even if the servant's acts are done wantonly and willfully, and regardless of the fact that more force was used than was necessary, and that plaintiff was unnecessarily injured.
3. Same--Evidence--Proof of relation.
In an action against a railroad company for an assault committed by one of the members of a section crew, evidence held to justify a finding that the crew were employees of defendant.
4. Same--Scope of Authority.
Where plaintff was assaulted by members of defendant's section crew in an endeavor to prevent them from constructing certain fences on the land of plaintiff's employer, proof that the foreman of the crew was directing the work and giving orders to the men under his charge to erect the fence was sufficient to establish his authority from defendant so to do.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County.
...On the going down of the remittitur, the plaintiff amended his complaint and at the commencement of the trial the defendant objected to any evidence under the amended complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the judgment in the former action was res judicata and conclusive in the present action. This contention of the appellant is in our opinion untenable.
The amended complaint contains very material allegations that were not contained in the original complaint, and which have the effect of bringing the case within the rule holding a defendant liable for the act of his servant or employee. The principal amendment is made in paragraph 5 of the complaint and is as follows: "And after being advised by the said Henry Doust and said crew at said time that they were instructed to construct said fence by said defendant company, and proposed and intended so to do, notwithstanding the protest of the said plaintiff, for said Berit Pramhus, plaintiff said to said crew then and there that he would remove such part of the fence then constructed if it was not removed, and would remove any other fence erected upon the land of the said Berit Pramhus, and had with him at said time an ax for the purpose of tearing down and removing said fence, all for the purpose of preventing the trespass upon the said land of the said Berit Pramhus so being committed, and threatened to be committed by the said defendant company by and through the section crew." It will be observed from the foregoing allegation that the plaintiff, as the agent of Berit Pramhus, the owner of the land, not only forbade the foreman of the section...
The master who puts the servant in a place of trust or responsibility, or commits to him the management of his business or the care of his property, is justly held responsible when the servant, through lack of judgment or discretion, or from infirmity of temper, or under the influence of passion aroused by the circumstances and the occasion, goes beyond the strict line of his duty or authority, and inflicts an unjustifiable injury upon another.
...
The plaintiff...alleges, in substance, that the defendant is a railroad corporation; that on the 26th day of January, 1903, and for a long time prior thereto, one Berit Pramhus was the owner and in possession of certain real estate described in the complaint; that upon the said 26th day of January the said defendant, under instructions of one of its general superintendents, ordered and commanded its section crew, of which Henry Doust was Foreman and Edward Faust was one of the laborers, together with other men, to enter upon the premises above described, belonging to the said Berit Pramhus, adjacent to the defendant company's right of way, and at a distance of not less than 50 feet from the outside of the said right of way, for the purpose of building and constructing a snow fence, which said entry was made upon the said premises without the consent of the said Berit Pramhus, and against her protest; that the said Henry Doust was the foreman in charge of the said section crew, and with the authority of the said defendant company, who performed the act complained of, and his crew of men, including the said Edward Faust, were attempting to build and construct the snow fence upon the land aforesaid; and said Berit Pramhus instructed the said plaintiff to go to the said Henry Doust, as foreman of said section crew, and to advise him not to place said snow fence upon said land, and to remonstrate with, and to forbid them so to do; that the plaintiff, complying with such request, and in obedience to the commands of said Berit Pramhus, for whom he was then employed, went to the said Henry Doust, foreman of the said section crew, and to said crew, and remonstrated with them, and forbade them to erect and construct a snow fence upon said land, and demanded of them that they remove the same therefrom, whereupon, at the instance and request of the said Henry Doust, the section foreman as aforesaid acting in behalf and for the benefit of the said defendant company, commanded the said Edward Faust to "go after" the said plaintiff, and thereupon the said Edward Faust did willfully and wantonly, and with force and arms, and without any just provocation therefor, beat and strike this plaintiff with his clenched fist, thereby knocking him down, and did then and there kick this plaintiff roughly and viciously with both of his feet in the side, whereby and on account of said willful and malicious striking and kicking by the said Edward Faust of this plaintiff, and while the said Edward Faust was acting for and in behalf of the said defendant company, he did cause the face of the said Lars O. Waaler to become sore, swollen, and bleeding, and did fracture and break one or more of the ribs of the said Lars O. Waaler, thereby causing him great bodily harm, suffering, and injury, rendering him unable to perform manual labor; all to his damage in the sum of $1,500.
