The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-29


r<seyed.
81 -. VAS a batch OF eleven rsTnittsf1rs
tbe supreme court fled with I4s
- ~ tie superior court yesterday,
80 the largest number flied st one
- ar many months. and giving the aE,-
80 OF q desire for = clsaE ~ AZ tbs
<xis2L
- - court was sustained. the remainder
80 reversed. Among those Affirmed
- .he City OF Ballard, appel ant. Va.
- Y-as. Coast Improvement Company;
s~<ss c. Mckee, respondent, vs. II. a.
e@'~a~fh ana Ada j. Wentworth. APP
s~ns.. IsiAneae Butter Ausss. respond
~ "a EnsAne Blksiow and /. y. Bige-
- Appellants, Starr q Co, appellants,
Il &. Cls.sserg e. a., rsspensssnts. Eliza
w.rA Hia. appellant, -. }. u. LoSHlsiEa,
..srsopdsnt: STATE Of " aahlngtoB, respond
- - william Carey. appellant; City q
s-s.t.e W. CHARTS Pearson. appellant. Ia
- az thsse cases tbs cost&. running
s.sr Is 10 So. vera taxed 70 tas appel
bsts. go
uaL respondent. ~. Elgla Dairy Com
scr e. 81. appellants. George B@nney.
ss.aessarss. vs.. +. cIesn and i. a. Eaocock,
j ..'aou4eat. julius Horton and Annie E.
! sI,rss,a ~ The Douahse-keily banking
/ rsr1oany and A. +. Van &c Vantar. ap-
ssg,znts. and George l.. Knapp. respond
81 " King County, appellant.
re frat case, ~ which me k.gtn Dairy
ssUgAny Ct al. Appealed from the aect-
! ..oa os ths superior court vac suit Tor
49, pubsical0n Of al alleged h0si, for
MOI tile DESCENDANTS pleaded 5uslinea-
r,gn Hall VAS Il driver Ia ths employ OF
- EIgla Dairy Company and collected
fgasn tbs patrons on ais route. InSTs -
failing CT IA the collections. and the
monrsetors found fas1lt with Hall. laying
sln OF fo4 thirty days ard putting an
sssr man on TIC route. The collections
seasn Increased. and when Hal applied
81 money. there being 40 due him, ae
sas tod that IL view Of the shortage he
sheaio give tbs company n reeeipte1 Oil
q he amount due him and call Il square.
rstssderaois controversy Wa bad 0n tae
nsss&E. The propnstogs Of The dairy alleg-
ia that Hal admitted taking the funds
ID giving a receipt "a asked for. After
fsis Hall went into business for himself.
ses1 ming his old route ard telling his
Cd customers that the company dlschars-
Al aim unlust3y. TIE company on nearing
ta.s sent a circular iettar ~ the CUSTOM
sls on Halle Old route. c0utFadlctlng
Halls statements and saying that he was
dseharged only upon MS own confession
Of having wrongfully converted money 10
lis own use. This Hail considered libel
Gus and sued the company. getting de-
ss1n.
rAs lower court allowed Hal to prove
A. oodrepatalgon. Ia which. Ia ths appeal
tie appellant contends the court erred.
.n1 In 81 la se4ea "a al ~ AE a
court. which held that such testimony 10
inAdmIsslble and that instances Of spe-
sina misconduct do not authorize the
plaintiff 10 prove his general good repu-
satson
Another error eohplaIned OF was the
refusal OF tho court TO allow the defend
ants 20 open and close the case 10 the
jary, the court assuming that the burden
q proof VAS on thu Gafendants. Tbs sa-
prens curt holds that the publication
OF TIE elloalar letter had been admitted
and the defense was \ Justification which
the defendants had to establish. This
hing 81. the court holds that they were
Emitted To open and close the case. The
lover court held that the company should
prove that Hail actually mIsap opri lated
money. In this the supreme court holds
thar the lower court erred. as Hall " as
tharsed By the plaintiffs With havtnE con-
fssstd TO talgiu. money. snd this aas AL
saey We're compelled 70 prove. For these
seasans the case Was reEItandsd Tor a ne
sflAl Justice scott rendered tho opinion.
xhi8h WAS eoncurrsd II ~ ths four
others.
The case OF George nennsy VS.. S. Clein
AMI T. A. nAhcock Was for repievin OF a
fame building valued at Slo0 Tho lower
court entered judgment In favor Of the
respondents upon tie pieadlnga and dis
,saEsed tie action. The appellant raised
an oblsC tIon that tbs order vacAtiag the
Judgment, Ike the reversal or a judg-
ment, operates 10 void a sale made un-
der IT as between the parties. This ths
corrt concurTed Ia and reversed the de-
csslon.
rhe objections raised by thu Douanos-
i ely Banking Company against the eeci-
sinn OF the lower court Ia favor OF Julius
Horton and Annie +. Horton were that
the affidavit OF the surety oa the appeal
bond did rot state that The surety vas
worth the required amount over and
shgva all dehsa and liabilities. as required
Is the statutes. In daciding the appeal.
after a lengthy review OF The law govern
tx the matter. the court found that the
property atcod IN the name OF the hus-
band. and a levy rpoa al % his interes.
IN the property upon Judgment whicn
could be enforced against kaN COMMUNITY
property would authorize = sale OF the
property standing In hls name for the
tsaeat 90 the community. lAat whether
fhls wac 40 or not the decree from vhsch
ms appeal was prosecuted snioined the
enforcement Of the judgment agains, the
community properly. ana under the law
found 10 govern the casa was nnanthoT~
tied The case was therefore reversed
sna the cause rernanded with lnstrucuoas
90 overrule tho demurrer 70 The answer.
The case appealed ~ King coau,y
against the decision OF the hover court IN
faser % George +. Knapp, was originally
fag an order OF the board of equalization
q King county denying knapp's petigioa
fvr reduction 81 the assess
ment Imposed against atm Hs
appealed 10 the superior court.
ana The city objected to the Jurisdiction
az the court 70 entertain the appeal II
ohiecll0n was oyerruied and 81 Judgment
enterea for Knapp. The couaty then ap-
psalet TO the supreme court. whlch holds
that al appeal does net lie from = board
o equalisa don 20 the superior court. The
Judgment Vas reversed and TIE cause re-
naaadsd with Instructions 20 the superior
cart 70 dismiss proceedings.
THEIR PETITION DENIED.