St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-06-07
KicKAPoo INDIAN sAcWA,
THE HIGHEST COURT
Hands Down Half-Dozen Final
Findings.
The supreme court yesterday handed
lnyvn the fnlln wing six nnininnS

The supreme court yesterday handed
down the folio wing six opinions:
George II. Orme, appellant, VS.. Charles c.
Mackuoin, respondent. Order denying
new trial affirmed. DICKINSON, j.
A contract by the defendant, upon
whom rested no other obligation than
that expressed ito at once proceed to
procure, and use all reasonable efforts
to procure" from a specified person
release of her interest in certain land,
construed as not an absolute undertake
ing to procure release, but only to
make reasonable effort to do so.
Evidence held sufficient to show that
this duty had been performed.
State of Minnesota, plaintiff. VS.. Frank C.
Bannock, defendant. judgment affirmed.
DICKINSON, j.
One accused III the municipal court
of the city of Duluth of criminal
otfense, within the jurisdiction of justi-
ces of the peace, may waive the right of
trial by jury. The right having been
waived cannot be recalled at will.
Union Railway Storage Company, appellant
vs. John X McDermott ct al, respondents
Orders affirmed. DICKINSON j.
Jefferson VS.. Asch (MSS.) followed,
denying the right of stranger to a con-
tract TO sue upon it, the promise owing
him no duty III the premises.
st. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company. ap-
pellant, vs., Village of Hincklev. respond
ent. Order affirmed by court. Dickinson,
j dissents.
Facts found considered as not show
ing that the exclusive occupancy for
fifteen years, by railroad for station
yard purposes, of land previously dedi-
Gated (but not used as public high
way, was not adverse to the public, SO
as to have conferred title by adverse
possession, the court not having found
that such possession was adverse.
Charles Casper ct al, respondents vs. W. P.
Heimbach, appellant Order reversed,
Dickinson, j.
A written contract for the sale of logs
"boomed and delivered to tug" con-
Strued, in connection with the evidence,
as meaning that the seller was to en-,
close the logs in boom so that Il tug
could fasten to them and tow them away.
A contemporaneOu oral agreement 10
enclose the logs within boom and fas-
ten the two separate ends of the boom
to the shore held Incompetent as being
at variance with the written agreement.
A party excepting 10 the admission OF
Objectionable evidence does not waive
his exception by subsequently moving
that the evidence be stricken out if such
motion be not granted.
Eugene A. Hendrickson, appellant. vs.
Bridget Tracy ct al, respondents Order
affirmed. DICKINSON, j.
A finding of the court upon conflicting
evidence held justified.
Application for a new trial for newly
discovered evidence held not we'll sup
ported, the party having gone to trial
without seeking a pOStpODement to en-
able him to ascertain the whereabouts
and procure the testimony of person
known to be material witness.
The supreme court yesterday considered
the following cases:
Frank Soukup, appellant, against Thomas
Topeka, respondent; argued and submitted.
Fred 5. Rosemond, respondent, against
John Graham, appellant; argued and sub
mitted.
Paul Won Vlesslngen, receiver etc. APP
pellants, against The Board OF County Com
missiouers of Clay County, respondent;
argued and submitted.