Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-11-06
SUPREME COURT.
Three More Decisions Handed Down
Prohibition Law Held
Constitutional.
Supreme Court Decisions.

supreme court DECISIONS.
Two decisions were filed on Friday in
the supreme court, Of cases argued at
the last Grand Forks term. The noted
liquor case of John Haas, who is now
serving out a sentence of 80 days in the
Cass county Jail for selling intoxicants
contrary to the statute, was n of the
decisions. The only question in this ap-
peal was as to the constitutionality of
the liquor prohibition law and the court
snstains the statute in every particular.
In the court below numerous assign
ments of error we're made by counsel for
Haas, but on the appeal all we're aban-
doned save the constitutional feature.
This being settled in favor of the law,
there is nothing left for Haas to do but
serve out his 80 days Jail sentence. The
following syllabus was filed:
Chapter 10 of the laws of 1890, enti-
tied Gan act to prescribe the penalties
for the unlawful manufacture, sale and
keeping for sale of Intoxicating liquors
and to regulate the sale, barter and CIV
ing away of such liquors for medicinal,
scientific and mechanical purposes" is
not in conflict with section 81 of article 2
of the state constitution which provides
that "No bill shall embrace more than
one subject which shall be expressed in
it's title, but a bill which violates this
provision shall be invalidated thereby
only as to so much thereof as shall not
be SO expressed.
This appeal Is from the court of Judge
Mcconnell, of Cass county, who decided
the law valid. Messrs. lilly & Stewart
appeared for Haas and Attorney-G General
Spencer, L. A. Rose, states attorney for
Cass county, and Chas. A. Pollock for
the state. The opinion of the court is by
Chief Justice Corliss and is short, cover
ing but four pages of type writer.
The other case was from the court of
Judge Mcconnell in Trail county and is
styled Grandin Bros. VS.. LaBar. This
case grows out of the famous order of
Commissioner Sparks, and which was
approved by Secretary of the Interior
LeMar, in 1887, whereby they decided
that the ten mile indemnity belt of land
set aside for the Northern Pacific road
was wrongfully reserved and that the
same was subject to presumption settlers.
The land over which this controversy
grew was selected by the Northern Paci-
fc road and before patent issued sold to
the Grandin Bros. After the Sparks or
der LeBar made apre-emption filing on a
quarter in the Fargo land office. He
went on the land with his family,
cropped it and made permanent imprve-
ments. Subsequently the order of
Sparks was reversed and the land office
refused to accept LeBar's proof and the
matter was appealed from one office
tribunal to another until 1T now is
pending before the secretary at Wash
ington. No decision on LeBar'e
filing has ever been made and nc
patent issued by the government to the
railroad company. After the reversal of
the Sparks order Grandins tried every
expedient to remove LeBar from the
land, but seem to have failed. Sew
eral different judges had a whack at the
case, but LeBar seemed to regard theil
orders enjoining him from occupying
the land as not very binding, as he KEEP
on in the ever tenor of his way anc
grew crops every year. AS a last resort
an application was made to Judge Nc
Cornell for a receiver of the land an6
crops pending the land office contest
This was granted OK parte and from this
order LeBar appeals and successfully, The
court holding that to appoint a receiver
without notice to the defendant was
wrong. The real decision is that during
the contest before the land office Gran
dins' title is not sufficiently good tc
maintain an action in equity. their title
not being even colorado. The following
is the syllabus:
In an action in equity to quiet title tx
real estate end enjoin the defendant
who resided upon and cultivated the
land as a farm, pending the action and
permanently, from tilling the land il
question, the complaint was verified
only on information and belief and by
one of plaintiffs attorneys. A verified
answer was served denying the facts ant
equities set out in the complaint. After
the service Of the answer and before
trial was had the plaintiff, without no
tice to the defendant Or his counsel, ap,
piled to the district court for an ordel
appointing a receiver of the crops
planted by the defendant and growing
upon the land. An ex parte order wal
made appointing such receiver. The
application was based upon an affidavit
setting out among other things defend
ants insolvency and that the crops wert
'liable to be m~ortgaged,p but no at
tempt was made to support the origina
equities set out in the complaint. Held
.l That such wae. arrnr