Omaha daily bee., 1888-03-08
Supreme Court Decisions.

LINCOLN, Neb., March 7.-[Special Tee-
gram to the BEE, In the supreme court to-
day George d. 'Schofeld OF Otoe county,
was admitted to practice
State, ex-rel Storkey, VS.. Field, defendant
to answer by March o.
Hershier VS.. Kincaid, defendant to answer
by Saturday next, file briefs Tuesday, cause
then to be submitted.
Higgenbotham VS. Benson, submitted on
briefs.
Hamilton county VS.. Hainer Continued.
Rottman VS.. Bartling, order to show cause
submitted. Court adjourned to Tuesday
next. o.:
A large number of DECISIONS were handed
down, among the more important were:
Ashby VS. Washburn & Co. Error from
Gage county. Reversed. Opinion by Reese.
johnson VS. Van Cleave. Error from Ham
ilton crunty. Affirmed. Opinion by Cobb
State ex-rel Carter vs. King, mandamus.
Judgment for relator, writ withhold and
costs divided. Opinion by Cobb.
State ex rel Carter VS. King mandamus.
Judgment for relator, writ withheld and
costs divided. Opinion by Maxwell. Reese
dissenting. In this case the court holds that
justice of the peace has no power to grant a
new trial except for fraud, partality or un-
due means. In regard to the question of
legal holidays brought up in this case
tho court holds that where the statutes
designate certain days as legal holidays, the
restriction is confined to the days named in
the statute. When such days fall upon Sun
day the succeeding Monday is not to be OBJ
served as such holiday, except so far as it
may effect the presentation and demand on
commercial paper
Caster VS. Welna, Error from Cummings
county. Reversed and remanded with in
structions to dismiss. Opinion by Cobb
Western horse and cattle company. VS.
Timan, er1or from Adams county. keyerSed.
Opinion by Cobb.
Sweeney VS. DurnuI, error from Douglas
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Reese.
Chicago Burlington & Quincy railroad vs.
Manning, appeal from, Douglas county. AT
tirmed. Opinion by Maxwell.
McManning vs.. Scator, error from Wash
ington county. Reversed. Opinion by Max
well. This case is of more than ordinary in
terest, as it relates directly to the Slocumb
| law. In the opinion the following points are
cited:
In an action by wife and her minor chill
dren against certain saoon-keepers for loss
of support from the intoxication of the hus-
| band and father caused by liquor alleged to
| have been furnished by certain saloon
| keepers there was proof of distinct
| sales by said saloon-keepers OF Intoxicating
| LIQUOR to said husband and fathdr during the
period stated in the petition and also OF his
| and Of his remaining in and near said sa-
| looms. IL was held that the testimony intro
| euced by the saloonkeepers that they had re-
| fused to furnish him Intoxicating liquor with
| the intention of disprovng the particular
acts testified to by the witnesses of the plain
| tiff did not warrant verdict for the defend
| ants
Proof of the sale Of Intoxicating liquors
| may be made by circumstances and such CIR
| cumstances may be sufficient to overcome
| the positive testimony of witnesses.
! Ex-parte Hill and Hill, habeas corpus.
| This was an interesting case docketed by the
deputy clerk of the supreme court to-day.
| The case was an application by a
father to obtain possession OF his
| infant child, whom he alleges its
mother Kept from his sight and touch al
though both parents occupied the same
| premises After considerable argument the
| writ was granted discharging the infant
from the exclusive custody of its mother yet
ordering 1t placed where both parents could
attend to it's maintenance and education.