Omaha daily bee., 1896-04-11

were not without the protection of the
statute requiring tracks to be fenced ,
Douglas County. Affirmed. Opinion by
Commissioner Irvine.
Evidence in an action by an administTatoI
for injuries causing the death of his dece-
dent, examined and held sufficient to sus'
2 A verdict Of 81, 400 in such a case held
reversal, where the deceased was a boy
II years old, a competent compositQr apie
father, 46 years old, n poor man with -FOUR
younger children; although there was nc
evidence that the son had as yet supplied
his father with any considerable amounts
3. Other questions raised not being sup
ported by any sufficient assignments in the
motion for a new trial or petition in error
not considered.
Cummins against Cammi1s. Appeal from
Commissioner Irvine.
the trial judge must be satisfied that the
case is prosecuted in good faith and with
exists. He is not bound to accept as con-
elusive in all cases the testimony of the
plaintiff, although corroborated in some
2. Where the testimony in such a case,
when taken in connection with all the. cir
oumstances. is weak and open to suspicion
through a failure to corrobOrate 1t on points
admitting Of corroboration, the, action Of
not 10 be set aside. although the evidence
may have been such that it would have
sustained a decree for plaintiff, and in
cases of n different character might have
Neher against Dobbs, Error from Gage
county. Reversed and remanded' Opinion
In an action for malicious prosecution a
P gaess p aeta b IF tde bS SI pToof tha 9f tb PgI p p
tim was convicted in the criminal action.
But this presumption may be re69tted =,
g.. 1t Is not true that the evidence OF
probable cause afforded by proof of a con-
vlction can be rebutted only by showing
that the CONVICTION victor oy was 8n Profi pstsno by f s,Gb
evidence may be rebutted by proof. of any
facts which show that, the conviction was
under circumstances ,.deprlvlns 1t OF any
3. A petition in an action for malicious
been convicted in the county court and on
appeal In the district court; that the con-
viction had been reversed by the supreme
1t was also pleaded that the defendant,
when he instituted the prosecution, was
aware Of certain facts which in law iestab-
iished the Innocence of the plaintiff; that
he had himself In the county court ,testi-
fed to those facts; whence 1t apPeareds that ma
Upon any consideration of evidence which
would justify. a conviction, but was due
tina the petition sufficiently pleaded want
OF probable cause.
T. The, existence, OF probable cause. the
law. and II the defendant is aware Of facts
establishing the innocence OF the plaintiff,
misrepresentation OF the law does not create
probable cause, although 1t may effect the
issue of malice.
Lewis against Mills. Error from Madi-
son county Reversed and remanded. Opin-
ion by Commissioner Raglan.
Where an officer holding an execution
issued on a judgment against A, by virtue
of such execution seizes the property Of b,
and the latter RECEIVERS a Judgment against
such officer for the value of the property
seized, then. in a suit by 3. against such
officer ard the s~ureties on his official bond
to recover the amount of the judgment,
such Judgment is conclusive evidence
against the officer and his %suTetles as to BIS
ownership Of the property at the time It was
seized by the officer, the amount OF the
damages and costs sustained by Il. by rea-
son thereof, in the absence OF a showing
nounce the judgment or that it was pro
cured by fraud or cqllusi9n' Thomas
2 And in the suit against the officer and
his s%ureties It Is immaterial that the officer
was not Designated as such In the pleadings
or Judgment Of the suit brought against
3 And the pleadlngs and Judgment In
the action brought by the owner against