This Day in Goodlove History, July 8

This Day in Goodlove History, July 8

• By Jeffery Lee Goodlove

• jefferygoodlove@aol.com

•

• Surnames associated with the name Goodlove have been spelled the following different ways; Cutliff, Cutloaf, Cutlofe, Cutloff, Cutlove, Cutlow, Godlib, Godlof, Godlop, Godlove, Goodfriend, Goodlove, Gotleb, Gotlib, Gotlibowicz, Gotlibs, Gotlieb, Gotlob, Gotlobe, Gotloeb, Gotthilf, Gottlieb, Gottliebova, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlow, Gutfrajnd, Gutleben, Gutlove

•

• The Chronology of the Goodlove, Godlove, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlieb (Germany) etc., and Allied Families of Battaile, (France), Crawford (Scotland), Harrison (England), Jackson (Ireland), LeClere (France), Lefevre (France), McKinnon (Scotland), Plantagenets (England), Smith (England), Stephenson (England?), Vance (Ireland from Normandy), and Winch (England, traditionally Wales), including correspondence with -George Rogers Clarke, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson.

•

• The Goodlove/Godlove/Gottlieb families and their connection to the Cohenim/Surname project:

• New Address! http://www.familytreedna.com/public/goodlove/default.aspx

•

• This project is now a daily blog at:

• http://thisdayingoodlovehistory.blogspot.com/

• Goodlove Family History Project Website:

• http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/o/o/Jeffery-Goodlove/

•

• Books written about our unique DNA include:

• “Abraham’s Children, Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People” by Jon Entine.

•

• “ DNA & Tradition, The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews” by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman, 2004.



“Jacob’s Legacy, A Genetic View of Jewish History” by David B. Goldstein, 2008.

•

• My thanks to Mr. Levin for his outstanding research and website that I use to help us understand the history of our ancestry. Go to http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/ for more information. “For more information about the Weekly Torah Portion or the History of Jewish Civilization go to the Temple Judah Website http://www.templejudah.org/ and open the Adult Education Tab "This Day...In Jewish History " is part of the study program for the Jewish History Study Group in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.



Birthdays on this date; Marion D. Wells, Lavina L. Kruse, Ryan M. Gray, Dalton Cunningham, Sarah E. Collins, Isaac Bacon



Weddings on this date; Chauncey J. Hall and Lloyd M. Tucker

In a message dated 7/5/2011 4:28:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time,



Jeffrey,
During the Swedish Days parade you mentioned a concert in September.
Can you give me some additional information and preticket sales? I
would like to make sure my wife and I make this a date night.

Thank you

Michael





Michael, Here is the concert info, I will be singing with the Elgin Choral Union for this concert…

A Concert of Remembrance



September 11, 2011 Sunday, 3:30 pm
Hemmens Theatre, Elgin, IL
Andrew Lewis, Conductor
Johannes Brahms
Requiem
John Adams
On the Transmigration of Souls
Elgin Choral Union
Elgin Symphony Orchestra
Heartland Voices
Elgin Children's Chorus
Solange Sior, soprano
Ghibong Kim, baritone

This concert is presented by the Elgin Choral Union with the City of Elgin and The Elgin Symphony Orchestra and is sponsored in part through the generous contributions of:

Cornelia A. and Florence B. Palmer Foundation; Walgreens; Ducchossios Family Foundation; Otto Engineering;Jack and Marlene Shales, Shales McNutt Company.

847.622.0300
Monday - Thursday: Noon - 7 p.m.
Friday - Saturday: Noon - 5 p.m.
24-hour voicemail: please leave a message and a staff member will return your call promptly.

Visit the ECC Ticket Office located in the
Arts Center (VPA) on the main campus:
ECC Arts Center Ticket Office
1700 Spartan Drive
Elgin, IL 60123-7193

Elgin Choral Union
1700 Spartan Drive
VPAC 141A
Elgin, IL 60124




Today’s News!

In Israel, diggers unearth the Bible's bad guys


MATTI FRIEDMAN | July 8, 2011 06:06 AM EST |


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEL EL-SAFI, Israel — At the remains of an ancient metropolis in southern Israel, archaeologists are piecing together the history of a people remembered chiefly as the bad guys of the Hebrew Bible.

The city of Gath, where the annual digging season began this week, is helping scholars paint a more nuanced portrait of the Philistines, who appear in the biblical story as the perennial enemies of the Israelites.

Close to three millennia ago, Gath was on the frontier between the Philistines, who occupied the Mediterranean coastal plain, and the Israelites, who controlled the inland hills. The city's most famous resident, according to the book of Samuel, was Goliath – the giant warrior improbably felled by the young shepherd David and his slingshot.

The Philistines "are the ultimate other, almost, in the biblical story," said Aren Maeir of Bar-Ilan University, the archaeologist in charge of the excavation.

The latest summer excavation season began this past week, with 100 diggers from Canada, South Korea, the United States and elsewhere, adding to the wealth of relics found at the site since Maier's project began in 1996.

In a square hole, several Philistine jugs nearly 3,000 years old were emerging from the soil. One painted shard just unearthed had a rust-red frame and a black spiral: a decoration common in ancient Greek art and a hint to the Philistines' origins in the Aegean.

The Philistines arrived by sea from the area of modern-day Greece around 1200 B.C. They went on to rule major ports at Ashkelon and Ashdod, now cities in Israel, and at Gaza, now part of the Palestinian territory known as the Gaza Strip.

At Gath, they settled on a site that had been inhabited since prehistoric times. Digs like this one have shown that though they adopted aspects of local culture, they did not forget their roots. Even five centuries after their arrival, for example, they were still worshipping gods with Greek names.

Archaeologists have found that the Philistine diet leaned heavily on grass pea lentils, an Aegean staple. Ancient bones discarded at the site show that they also ate pigs and dogs, unlike the neighboring Israelites, who deemed those animals unclean – restrictions that still exist in Jewish dietary law.

Diggers at Gath have also uncovered traces of a destruction of the city in the 9th century B.C., including a ditch and embankment built around the city by a besieging army – still visible as a dark line running across the surrounding hills.

The razing of Gath at that time appears to have been the work of the Aramean king Hazael in 830 B.C., an incident mentioned in the Book of Kings.

Gath's importance is that the "wonderful assemblage of material culture" uncovered there sheds light on how the Philistines lived in the 10th and 9th centuries B.C., said Seymour Gitin, director of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem and an expert on the Philistines.

That would include the era of the kingdom ruled from Jerusalem by David and Solomon, if such a kingdom existed as described in the Bible. Other Philistine sites have provided archaeologists with information about earlier and later times but not much from that key period.

"Gath fills a very important gap in our understanding of Philistine history," Gitin said.

In 604 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon invaded and put the Philistines' cities to the sword. There is no remnant of them after that.

Crusaders arriving from Europe in 1099 built a fortress on the ruins of Gath, and later the site became home to an Arab village, Tel el-Safi, which emptied during the war surrounding Israel's creation in 1948. Today Gath is in a national park.

The memory of the Philistines – or a somewhat one-sided version – was preserved in the Hebrew Bible.

The hero Samson, who married a Philistine woman, skirmished with them repeatedly before being betrayed and taken, blinded and bound, to their temple at Gaza. There, the story goes, he broke free and shattered two support pillars, bringing the temple down and killing everyone inside, including himself.

One intriguing find at Gath is the remains of a large structure, possibly a temple, with two pillars. Maeir has suggested that this might have been a known design element in Philistine temple architecture when it was written into the Samson story.

Diggers at Gath have also found shards preserving names similar to Goliath – an Indo-European name, not a Semitic one of the kind that would have been used by the local Canaanites or Israelites. These finds show the Philistines indeed used such names and suggest that this detail, too, might be drawn from an accurate picture of their society.

The findings at the site support the idea that the Goliath story faithfully reflects something of the geopolitical reality of the period, Maeir said – the often violent interaction of the powerful Philistines of Gath with the kings of Jerusalem in the frontier zone between them.

"It doesn't mean that we're one day going to find a skull with a hole in its head from the stone that David slung at him, but it nevertheless tells that this reflects a cultural milieu that was actually there at the time," Maeir said.[1]



This Day…

July 8, 1099: A solemn procession wound round the path that surrounded the city of Jerusalem.. The bishops and priests of the Crusade came first, bearing crosses. In a move reminiscent of Joshua at Jericho, during the First Crusade 15,000 starving Christian soldiers march in religious procession around Jerusalem as the Muslim defenders look on. This seemingly desperate move is part of the preparations for the final successful Crusader assault that will take place on July 15 following which the Moslem and Jewish citizenry would be slaughtered by those who claim to fight in the name of the man who said “love thine enemies.” [2]



July 8, 1652: Robert Smythe6 [Thomas Smythe5, Thomas Smythe4, John Smythe3, Richard2, William1] (b. Unk) married Lady Dorothy Sidney (d. 1684) on July 8, 1652.

A. Children of Robert Smythe and Dorothy Sidney:
+ . i. Robert Smythe[3]



Robert Smythe 6 is the 10th Great Grand Uncle of the compiler.



July 8, 1654: Jacob Barsimson becomes the first Jew to settle in North America, in New York.[4] In 1654 Jews expelled from Recife, Brazil, forced to leave by the Catholic Portuguese. THESE WERE THE FIRST JEWS IN AMERICA, the sefardins, who settled in Manhattan.[5]

July 8, 1663: Jews were already living in Rhode Island when The British Crown granted a charter the colony founded by Roger Williams, which guarantees freedom of worship. The Jews had arrived in Newport in 1658. Reportedly, these were Sephardic Jews who had fled from Brazil to avoid another round of the Inquisition. [6]

July 8, 1670

England and Spain sign the Treaty of Madrid, agreeing to respect each nation’s rights in the American territories they control.[7]



Samuel Winch was of Sudbury in 1671, and then, or soon after, was in the occupation of lands out of the South bounds of Sudbury, where he probably lived. "Winch's old house" is referred to as on the Danforth farm, in 1689. Thomas Drury, John How and others, were early settlers in that part of the town. The nearness to Sudbury doubtless led to the early settlements in that neighborhood.[8]



An agreement dated 1671, between Lauchlan Mackinnon and James Macgregor, of Macgregor, “for special love and amitie…they were lawfully descended Fra twa breethern of auld Descent…to serve each other.”[9]



July 8, 1758

The British lose over 2,000 men during an unsuccessful assault on Fort Ticonderoga on Lake George, during the French and Indian War.[10]



July 8, 1776: When the Liberty bell rang on July 8, 1776 to alert the people to the public reading of the declaration.[11] It was rung my Andrew McNair, a Mason.[12] The Liberty Bell;s traditional association with the events of the American Revolution and its prophetic “Proclaim Liberty” inscription, have made it the most cherished and revered symbol of American Freedom.[13] The Liberty Bell takes its name from the inscription taken from Leviticus 25:10 that states, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."[14]









EXTRACTS OF SEVERAL LETTERS TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.~[1] from Marquis de Lafayette.



(ORIGINAL.)



Ambler's Plantation, July 8th, 1781.



The inclosed copy, my dear general, will give you an account of our

affairs in this quarter. Agreeably to your orders I have avoided a

general action, and when Lord Cornwallis's movements indicated that it

was against his interest to fight, I ventured partial engagements. His

lordship seems to have given up the conquest of Virginia. It has been a

great secret that our army was not superior, and was most generally

inferior, to the enemy's numbers. Our returns were swelled up, as

militia returns generally are; but we had very few under arms,

particularly lately, and to conceal the lessening of our numbers, I was

obliged to push on as one who had heartily wished a general engagement.

Our regulars did not exceed one thousand five hundred, the enemy had

four thousand regulars, eight hundred of whom were mounted: they

thought we had eight thousand men. I never encamped in a line, and

there was greater difficulty to come at our numbers.[15]



• July 8, 1805: Rothschild writes the Landgrave seeking the status of “Protected Jew” in Kassel so that he could business there while still living in Frankfurt. The request was rejected. The need for such a request was symptomatic of the crazy quilt of regulations designed to limit the business opportunities for Jews. [16]

•

•

• July 8, 1807: Rothschild wrote to his son Nathan telling him that that Czar Alexander and Napoleon had met at Tilsit. He expressed the hope that peace would prevail. In the end, his hopes proved to be unfounded. [17]

Joseph LeClere, my 5th great grandfather was one of Napoleans bodyguards. His family would eventually move to Dubuque



\Fri. July 8, 1864

In camp at Algiers wrote letter home

Also one for H Winans[18]

Was all over town had peaches figs pears and melons to eat[19]



July 8, 1897

The latest improvement in mowing machines is an umbrella invented by W. H. Goodlove. Patent applied for.[20]



July 8, 1921: The special election to select directors for the news district was held in the Buck Creek Church rather than in the Buck Creek country schoolhouse as was customary. The same board that had been elected a year earlier was reelected by acclamation. If any Catholics participated in that election, they went unnoticed. The struggle was finally over. The Buck Creekers had their consolidated district; but realists in the congregation knew that additional hurdles probably lay ahead. The Delhi district consolidated in 1915, but voters there still had not approved the issuance of bonds for building and addition to the Delhi School. These faded into the background as the meeting became yet another opportunity for Buck Creekers to celebrate their community accomplishment.[21]



• July 8, 1938: On Nazi orders, the Great Synagogue in Munich is torn down.[22]



July 8, 1942: Arjel Gottlob, born March 3, 1926. Transport AAo –Olomouc. Terezin July 8, 1942.

• Bc- August 25, 1942 Maly Trostinec [23]



Ariel Gottlob, born March 3, 1926. On Transport AAo –Olomouc, Moravia, in the east of the Czech Republic. There were serious tensions between the Czech and German-speaking inhabitants during both world wars (largely brought on by outside provocation). On Kristallnacht on November 10, 1938, the synagogue was destroyed and in March 1939, 800 Jewish men were arrested, some being sent to Dachau concentration camp. During 1942-1943, the remaining Jews were sent to Theresienstadt and other German concentration camps in occupied Poland. 285 of the towns Jews survived the Holocaust. During the war most of the towns' German residents sided with the Nazis and the German-run town council renamed the main square after Adolf Hitler.[20][24] Ariel was sent to Terezin (Theresienstadt) on July 8, 1942. On transport Bc on August 25, 1942 Ariel was sent to Maly Trostinec.[21][25] Maly Trastsianiets extermination camp, a small village on the outskirts of Minsk, Belarus, was the site of a Nazi extermination camp.



The camp became a Vernichtungslager, or extermination camp, on May 10, 1942 when the first transport of Jews arrived there. While many Jews from Germany, Austria and the present-day Czech Republic met their deaths there (in most cases almost immediately upon their arrival, by being trucked to the nearby Blagovshchina (Благовщина) and Shashkovka (Шашковка) forests killing grounds and shot in the back of the neck), the primary purpose of the camp was the extermination of the substantial Jewish community of Minsk and the surrounding area. Mobile gas chambers deployed here performed a subsidiary if not insignificant function in the genocidal process..[22][26]





July 8, 1942

The SS commander in France, General Oberg, issues regulations barring Jewish adults and children in the Occupied Zone from attending any public entertainment, especially theaters, dance recitals, concerts, and movies open to the public. Except between 3 and 4 P.M., Jews can no longer enter department stores or neighborhood shops nor make purchases or have others make purchases for them. It is forbidden for Jews to enter or use the following places open to the public: cafes, restaurants, tea rooms, bars, theaters, movie theaters, concert and music halls, all other places of entertainment, public telephone booths, historic monuments, sporting events, race tracks and betting shops, camp sites, and parks or public gardens.



Jews of the Occupied Zone are now pariahs, outcasts from French society. French laws exclude them from most professions and work and German regulations mark them with the yellow star and isolate them from all social life. They are virtually forced to remain at home, and when they go out they risk at every moment committing some minor infraction that can be a pretext for their arrest. And once arrested, even if they are French they will often be sent to Drancy and deported.[27]



• July 8, 1942: Seven thousand Lvov (Ukrainian) Jews are interned in the Janowska camp.[28]



July 8, 1964
334 F2d 90 Jones v. L Goodlove L
334 F.2d 90

Milford JONES, Appellant,
v.
Gerol L. GOODLOVE, Mary Goodlove, and Jeffrey Lee Goodlove, by Gerol L. Goodlove, His Father and Next Friend, and Peter Lundmark, Appellees.

No. 17551.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

July 8, 1964.

Robert C. Tilden, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, made argument for appellant and filed brief.

Kenneth L. Moon, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, made argument for appellees Goodlove and filed brief.

Ralph W. Gearhart, of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, made argument for appellee Peter Lundmark and filed brief with James H. Carter, of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Before VOGEL, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.

MATTHES, Circuit Judge.

1

This diversity action, removed from an Iowa district court, arose from a three-automobile collision which occurred on Primary Highway No. 20 within or near the corporate limits of the Town of Moorland, Iowa.

2

Appellees Goodlove were proceeding eastwardly in the south lane of traffic about 10 to 12 car lengths behind the eastbound automobile which was being driven by appellant Milford Jones. As Jones was making a gradual left turn across the north or westbound traffic lane and into a gravel filling station driveway, a collision occurred between the Jones automobile and the westbound automobile being driven by appellee Peter Lundmark. The Lundmark automobile caromed off the Jones automobile and then collided with the Goodlove automobile in the south or eastbound lane of traffic.

3

Three of the occupants of the Goodlove automobile, Gerol L., the driver; Mary, his wife; and Jeffrey Lee, their son, were injured and sued Jones and Lundmark to recover damages. Jones and Lundmark filed cross-claims against each other. The case was tried to the court and a jury and the Goodloves recovered a verdict against Jones for damages totaling $19,321.02, and Lundmark obtained a verdict for $3,537.50 against Jones. From the judgment entered on the verdict, Jones has appealed.1

4

No question is presented on this appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The points relied upon by appellant for reversal and for another trial place in issue: (a) rulings of the court in admitting and excluding evidence; (b) the correctness of the court's charge to the jury.

5

One of the pivotal issues bearing materially upon Lundmark's legal responsibility for the collisions, and which the jury had to resolve, was the speed of Lundmark's vehicle in the 45 m. p. h. posted speed zone as it approached appellant's automobile while the latter was in the process of making the left turn into the filling station driveway. More specifically, the question was whether Lundmark was complying with the speed law of Iowa at and immediately prior to the time of the occurrence. The speed of the Lundmark automobile was estimated to be 60 to 80 m. p. h. by Mr. Goodlove; at 60 m. p. h. by one of the occupants of plaintiffs' automobile and at least 60 m. p. h. by appellant Jones; and at 43 to 45 m. p. h. by appellee Lundmark and by Mrs. Lundmark, who was a passenger in the Lundmark automobile. The highway patrolman, who was not an eyewitness to the collision but who made an investigation of the accident, was permitted to testify that in his opinion the Lundmark automobile was traveling at approximately 45 m. p. h. According to the patrolman, the Lundmark automobile skidded 90 feet before it came into contact with the Jones automobile, and there was evidence showing that after the first collision Lundmark's automobile traveled 114 feet before colliding with the Goodlove automobile.

6

In the foregoing factual setting relating to speed of the Lundmark vehicle, the court gave Instruction 24, which reads as follows:

7

"The laws of Iowa provide that at the time and place and with the motor vehicles involved in this case, any speed not reasonable and proper having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of any other conditions then existing and greater than 45 miles per hour was unlawful.

8

"If you find from all the evidence that the defendant Peter Lundmark failed to comply with this provision of the law, he would be guilty of negligence."

9

The applicable speed standards, statutory in origin, are to be found in § 321.285, Iowa Code, as amended, I.C.A., which provides in pertinent part that a person operating a motor vehicle on a highway must drive at a:

10

"* * * careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of any other conditions then existing."

11

and in § 321.290, Iowa Code, as amended, I.C.A., providing in pertinent part that the state highway commission shall have the power to declare reasonable and safe speed limits on any part of the primary road system:

12

"* * * which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected * * *."

13

It is uncontroverted that the speed limit for Primary Highway 20, where the collision occurred, had been established at 45 m. p. h. and that the speed zone had been and was posted with appropriate signs.2 Additionally, all parties are in accord that the evidence warranted submission to the jury of both statutory speed standards, and the only controversy in this regard below and on appeal concerns whether Instruction 24 properly submitted both standards.

14

Proper exception was taken by appellant to the giving of Instruction 24, and on this appeal appellant vigorously contends that the instruction was prejudicially erroneous because: (a) it failed to separate and distinguish the two separate and distinct speed standards, i. e., (1) reasonable and proper speed, and (2) speed not greater than 45 m. p. h.; (b) it referred to the two standards as a single standard; (c) it submitted the speed standards conjunctively so as to require the jury to find both standards had been violated before Lundmark would be guilty of negligence.

15

The Iowa Supreme Court has unequivocally held that where a statute fixes the standard of care required under given conditions, a violation of the statute — without legal excuse — constitutes negligence per se. Kisling v. Thierman, 214 Iowa 911, 243 N.W. 552, 554 (1932); Danner v. Cooper, 215 Iowa 1354, 246 N. W. 223, 229 (1932); Florke v. Peterson, 245 Iowa 1031, 65 N.W.2d 372, 373 (1954); Wachter v. McCuen, 250 Iowa 820, 96 N.W.2d 597, 599 (1959), where the court said:

16

"In the often cited case of Kisling v. Thierman, 214 Iowa 911, 243 N. W. 552, we undertook to lay down a rule for the guidance of drivers and of litigants in this class of negligence cases. With one exception not material here we said that failure to obey statutes or ordinances governing the use of vehicles on the highways is negligence, not merely prima facie evidence thereof. 214 Iowa at page 915, 243 N.W. at page 554, supra. Since then we have followed that rule."3

17

From the foregoing, it would seem to follow that where, as here, violation of Iowa statutory rules of the road is in issue and there is evidence from which the jury could find a violation of more than one statutory standard, the submission of each of the violated standards should be in clear, concise and understandable language. After careful analysis of Instruction 24, we conclude that it fails to meet this test. It is abundantly clear from the record that the court was endeavoring by this instruction to submit two statutory standards (reasonable and proper speed, § 321.285, and speed in excess of 45 m. p. h., § 321.290), and to further instruct the jury that the violation of either standard constituted negligence on the part of Lundmark. However, even a casual reading of the instruction demonstrates it falls short of this mark. The instruction is far from a model of clarity — it lends itself to confusion and misunderstanding. Indeed, a jury composed of reasonable intelligent individuals could understand the instruction to mean that even though Lundmark was exceeding the 45 m. p. h. speed limit, nevertheless, if he were operating his automobile at a reasonable and proper speed, having due regard for the traffic and highway conditions, then he was not negligent. That is to say, the instruction was susceptible to the interpretation that only one speed standard was to be considered by the jury. The first paragraph of the instruction is certainly subject to such meaning, and incorporation of the singular phrase "this provision of the law" in the second paragraph serves to emphasize that only one speed standard was submitted; at least, the jury could have so interpreted the instruction.

18

Appellee Lundmark has made a feeble and unpersuasive effort to demonstrate that Instruction 24 constitutes a correct declaration and submission of both speed standards. He asserts that "whether these two standards are combined in one instruction or set forth separately is largely a matter of form," and cites our case of Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Botts, 8 Cir., 173 F.2d 164, 169 (1949). This case stands for the salutary principle that form of an instruction does not require reversal. The principle has no application here because we are not dealing with a question going to the form of an instruction but rather to the substance of the matter that is submitted for the jury's consideration.4

19

On the other hand, plaintiffs attempt to justify the giving of the instruction on the theory that it met the approval of one of appellant's attorneys. The difficulty is that the record is wholly insufficient to warrant us in concluding that the instruction satisfied appellant.

20

Conceding with commendable candor on oral argument that "I do not like Instruction 24," able counsel for plaintiffs sought to escape its harmful effect by arguing that plaintiffs were innocent of any wrongdoing in connection with the collision; that they have legitimate claims; that they did not contribute to any of the material errors complained of and that it would be unfair to them to reverse the judgment and remand the cause for another trial. Sympathetic understanding for the plight in which plaintiffs find themselves, of course, affords no legal basis for judicial sanction of an instruction which patently fails to correctly declare the law and which could have misdirected the jury in regard to a crucial issue in the case. It, of course, goes without saying that if the speed standards had been laid down properly, the jury might have taken a different view of Lundmark's right to recover from appellant, and of Lundmark's liability to plaintiffs.

21

Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting over objection and then in failing to strike the opinion testimony — based mainly on skid marks — relating to the speed of Lundmark's vehicle given by the highway patrolman who investigated the accident. Since this question could arise again upon retrial, we feel obliged to briefly comment upon it.5

22

In essence, appellant asserts that the patrolman failed to qualify as an expert, that his testimony relating to the speed of Lundmark's vehicle was an "irresponsible guess," and that "it is unrealistic to permit such testimony on such a crucial issue on the theory that the witness' lack of knowledge or training can be shown by cross-examination and this will simply go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility." Once again we reiterate that "this court is committed to the view that expert testimony is not vulnerable to an objection that it invades the province of the jury; that the qualification of the expert and the question of whether expert opinion upon the subject matter should be permitted are questions which should be determined by the trial court in the exercise of sound discretion. The trial court's ruling upon the admissibility of expert testimony will not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion." Rhynard v. Filori, 8 Cir., 315 F.2d 176, 178 (1963). Compare also, Lofton v. Agee, 8 Cir., 303 F.2d 287, 288 (1962); Solomon, Dehydrating Company v. Guyton, 8 Cir., 294 F.2d 439, 443-444 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 929, 82 S.Ct. 366, 7 L.Ed.2d 192 (1961); and Een v. Consolidated Freightways, 8 Cir., 220 F.2d 82, 87 (1955). Of course, a trial court may abuse its discretion by allowing a seemingly qualified expert to exceed the permissible bounds of opinion testimony and enter into the realm of utter speculation and conjecture.6

23

We make no determination whether the trial court here abused its discretion in admitting the patrolman's testimony. However, in light of various statements of the patrolman on cross-examination, which to some degree rendered suspect the patrolman's competency to determine from physical evidence the speed of Lundmark's automobile, we are of the view that in the application of its discretion in any future trial of this case, the trial court should carefully scrutinize the patrolman's qualifications and the permissible extent of his testimony.

24

Since other alleged errors relied upon by appellant can be avoided or are of a nature that they are not likely to recur upon retrial, we deem it unnecessary to discuss them.

25

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Notes:

1

For convenience, we shall refer to Jones as "appellant," appellees Goodlove as "plaintiffs" and appellee Lundmark by his surname

2

The highway patrolman testified that the 45 mile speed zone extended for about one-half mile to the east and about one-half mile to the west of the entrance to the filling station

3

We note that in the recent case of McMaster v. Hutchins, 120 N.W.2d 509, 513 (1963), the Supreme Court of Iowa held that violation of Iowa Code, § 321.298, I.C.A., requiring motorists meeting each other on the highway to give one half the traveled way by turning to the right, is only prima facie evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. See Jenkins v. Bierschenk, 8 Cir., 333 F.2d 421 (opinion filed June 22, 1964). Compare also, France v. Benter, Iowa, 128 N.W.2d 268 (May 5, 1964)

4

Subsequent to the submission of this appeal, appellee Lundmark by letter referred us to Ness v. H. M. Iltis Lumber Company, Iowa, 128 N.W.2d 237 (1964) for the Iowa Supreme Court's view on the use of "or" and "and" in instructions. The determination in Ness — in the factual framework of that case — lends no support to upholding Instruction 24 here

5

Inasmuch as the parties cite several cases on this issue from state jurisdictions other than Iowa, as well as Iowa and federal authorities, we call attention to Rule 43(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., providing in part:

"* * * All evidence shall be admitted which is admissible under the statutes of the United States, or under the rules of evidence heretofore applied in the courts of the United States on the hearing of suits in equity, or under the rules of evidence applied in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state in which the United States court is held. In any case, the statute or rule which favors the reception of the evidence governs * * *. The competency of a witness to testify shall be determined in like manner."

6

Subsequent to the submission of this appeal, our attention has been directed to Brown v. Guiter, Iowa, 128 N.W.2d 896 (June 9, 1964), wherein the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling excluding the opinion of a police officer relating to the speed of the involved cars at the time of collision. However, as previously noted, footnote 5, supra, the question whether evidence is admissible is not necessarily controlled by state law

· 334 F.2d. [29]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110708/ml-israel-philistine-metropolis/

[2] [2] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/

[3] Proposed Descendants of William Smith

[4] On This Day in America by John Wagman.

[5] http://christianparty.net/jewsexpelled.htm

[6] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com

[7] On This Day in America, by John Wagman

[7] On This Day in America by John Wagman.

[8] A History of Framington, Massachusetts , http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/_glc_/3256/3256_33.html

[9] Torrence, 477.

[10] On This Day in America, by John Wagman.

[11] Philadelphia, Art Color Card Distributors.

[12] Secrets of the Founding Fathers, HISTI, 6/29/2009.

[13] Philadelphia, Art Color Card Distributors.

[14] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/

[15] Title: Memoirs, Correspondence and Manuscripts of General Lafayette

Author: Lafayette



[16] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com

[17] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/

[18] In the 1880, Linn Co, IA, Brown Twp (Springville) census page 4 line 29 there is a “Rosa J Goodlove, schoolteacher, age 23 born Iowa living with Hiram W. Winans, relationship “niece”. (Courtesy Linda Pederson email 1/26/2009) If Rosa Goodlove was Hiram’s niece, then one of Hiram’s brothers would have been Rosa’s father. Given that Rosa’s previously assumed father, Joseph V. Goodlove died June 15, 1857, and Rosa J was born April 9, 1860 according to Jean McOmber, (Helena MT) Rosa’s granddaughter, it seems likely that her father was not Joseph. (Letter to Tama County Museum dated 1990.) Her age on the 1880 census was given as 23 and her previous date of birth was thought to be 1856.

[19] William Harrison Goodlove Civil War Diary by Jeff Goodlove

[20] Winton Goodlove papers

[21] There Goes the Neighborhood, Rural School Consolidation at the Grass Roots in Twentieth Century Iowa, by David R. Reynolds, page 210-211.

[22] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page1761.

• [23] Terezinska Pametni Kniha, Zidovske Obeti Nacistickych Deportaci Z Cech A Moravy 1941-1945 Dil Druhy

[24] [20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olomouc

[25] [21] Terezinska Pametni Kniha, Zidovske Obeti Nacistickych Deportaci Z Cech A Moravy 1941-1945 Dil Druhy

[26] [22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maly_Trostenets_extermination_camp

[27] French Children of the Holocaust, A Memorial by Serge Klarsfeld, page 37.

[28] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1772.



[29] http://openjurist.org/334/f2d/90/jones-v-l-goodlove-l