Omaha daily bee., 1895-11-21

party desiring the evidence must offer to
prove. the facts sought to be e!icited by the
question.
5. The transcript of the record filed in this
court imports absolute verify. If incorrect,
or it fails to speak the truth, the correction
must be made in the trial court, and not in
this court.
6. Where the jury are not required. to fix
is not error for the trial Judge to refuse to
instruct them as to penalty prescribed by
statute for the ofense. or or to permit that
I. In prosecution for larceny as balee,
an az, instruction which fails to charge that at
fe!onious was not for that reason erro-
neous. The gist of the offense in such
prosecution is the conversion Of the prop
the owner thereof with the intent to steal
s. Held: That the charge of the court to
the effect that every sane person is, pre-
sumed to intend the natural and probable
consequences of his voluntary acts was not
only abstraCtly correct, but was applicable
to the made by the evidence.
9. Held that the sixth instruction correctly
stated the rule relating to the defense of
TO- It is we'll settled rule that instruc-
tions should be construed together, and If,
when considered as Il whole, they properly
state the law. it is sufficient
II. The supreme court will not reverse a
case for the refusing of an instruction,
in other instructions.
12 Evidence examined and held sufficient
WILCOX NOT IN CONTEMPT
Wilcox against State. Error from Doug
las county. Reversed and remanded.
opinion by Chief Justice Norval
witness in attendance upon a court,
who on being ordered to, be sworn or af.
hrmed. contumaciousy refuses, Is guilty of
a contempt of court, and il punishable
2 But it is not a contempt of court for
witness ste to decline merely to be oiy sworn
and the record must disclose.
g. A witness who contumacously refuses
to answer T, any lGgal and proper question
A. When witness Is committed for con
tempt for refusing to testify, the question
be be- stated in the order of Commitment
. Dolen AGAINST MeLaughlin' Error from
Gage county; Reversed Opinion by
Where in a petition it was alleged, and
two two pilEo licensed saloon Keepers and tiSs the
ing members of a family had been de-
death death Of the head OF the family which
death took place while such head of the
cation, at intervals extending over a period
period of intoxication had been two weeks
after any. liquor had been, sold, and that
to of the s 9 OF % the 9Gn
misleading error to instruct the jury that
where several liquor dealers furnish In
dealer il equally liable. and that In case
one dealer furnishes the first draught
while the user thereof is perfectly sober,
and the liquor which intensified ana com
pleted the intoXication was furnished by
other parties, the dealer furnishing the
first draught is equally liable with the
others for the damage resulting from such
intoxication."
2. In an action for damages against H.
censed liquor dealers and the sureties on
their bonds for loss of support caused by
the death of the head Of the family al
legged to have been brought about by in
toxicating liquors sold by such dealers
where there had been introduced evidence
tending TO show that at least one sale
was of "A liquid not intoxicating II was
erroneous to instruct the jury that where
1t Is shown that the person was sold or
furnished liquor at licensed saloon the
presumption IL that such liquor was In
toxicating.
Creighton against Finlayson. Error from
Douglas county. Opinion by Commissioner
Ragan.
The apparent authority Of an agent
which win bind his principal Is such
authority as the agent appears to have
by reason of the actual authority which
he has. Obernes against Burke, 30 Neb,,
5Sl.
q Evidence examined and held to sustain
made the basis OF the defendants counter
claim was made with defendant by plain
tins agent, and that the making Of such
contract was within the scope OF the
agents authority.