The Douglas independent. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 187?-1885, 1883-05-19
SYLLABUS.


A warehouseman receiving grain Oh
storage, and mixing it with other grain
Of the same nature and quality, also
stored in his warehouse, in the usual
course Of business, is not charga1le with
a conversion by reason OF such act
alone.
second--In suit in equity, brought
by mortgage III . chattel mortgage to
enforce his lien on the meltgaged prore
erty, in the hands of several parties ~he
have acquired possession since the mort
gage lien attached to the property, a
personal decree against ene of such pal
ties, for the full value of the property,
based wholly on mere technical con
version, not occasiooing any loss of Sc
caritY, nor in any manner interfering
with the plaintiffs recourse upon it, in
the hands CT another of said parties, al
so defendant in the suit, cannot be
sustained. 1t is not technical injury,
but real loss in respect of the security
afforded by the mortgage lien, caused
by the wrongful act CT a defendant, that
determines the question of his personal
liability in suit Of this character
State CT Oregon, respondent, VS..
John Stewart, appellant; convicted of
the crime of Kidnapping. Appeal from
Clatsop county. Judgment Of the Cir
cult Court affirmed. Opinion By Lord,
J.; Waldo, j., concurring.
SYLLABUS.
First-The plea Of a former convic-
ton must be before a prosecution for
the same identical ofensc. The test is
not " neither the defendant has already
been tried for the same act, but whether
he has been put in Jeopardy for the
same otIense.
Secon4 Tie same principle which
assures to witness the privilege Of an
explanation when contradictory declara-
tions are offered applies TO assure him
the right Of explanation when declara-
5ions of hostility arc sought to be in
troduced.
A. P. Ankeny, appellant, VS.. The
F,irview Milling Company, respondent
-Appeal from Marion county. Judg-
Of the Circuit Court reversed. Opinion
by Watson, C. J.
SYLLABUS.
First-Affidavits OF other documents
properly filed and considered by the
ceurt below, on the hearing Of mo-
ton for an order allowing warrant
to issue to tho Sheriff for the abate-
ment Of II private nuisance, under sec
ton $50 Of the civil code, constitute
part Of the record Of such proceeding,
without being made such by bill Of
exceptions. There is no technical re
cord or Judgment role" in such cases
; the statute not having prescribed oi
What it shall consist; therefor,
) it includes ali papers properly filed ii
the ceurt below.
Second d-Unless it appears On the
hearing Of such motion that the nui-
sance has ceased, or that the remedy by
abatement would be inadequate, it be
) comes the imperative duty of the cour
to order the issuance CT the warrant
The court has no authority to direc
the defendant to abate the nuisance es
tablisbed on the trial, or prescribe tb
medc in which it shall be done. tt
jurisdiction extends, ia proper case
to making the erder allowing the war
rant to Issue only, leaving to the office
the responsibility OF executing it prop
erlv.
Third-It is the duty OF the Sheriff
, under such warrant to abate the nu1-
, sance with rs little injury to the de-
fendant as possible. For any unneces
sary damage, he would be liable to th,
injured party.
3 Fourth-In an action for dama ge
, for a private nuisance where plaintiff
reeovers verdict and Judgment is en-
tered thereon in his favor, and the re
: cord does not show on it's face the par
tic'llar nuisance established by Sthe yer
dlct, it is competent. for the {court il
which the trial was had, in maxim.
the order allowing the warrant to issu,
for its statement, TO identify such nui
sance by means of its own knowlsdg,
of the evidence introduced on the trial
and applicable to the issues made il
the pleadings.
EyrzE5 "a q ryST7 80 E HSA