St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-24
SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS THE
-a LOWER COURT ON THE SAL
AIRY QUESTION.
BATCH OF DECISIONS FILED.
AMONG THEM THE FIRST REVER-
SAL OF THE SEASON IS
FOUND.
LIST OF FEDERAL JURORS DRAWN
Half n Dozen Damage Suits Begun
With District COurt-Patrick
keIly's Sanity.

The supreme court yesterday handed down
five decisions, and two of them in which the
city of st. Paul was the appellant were de-
cded against the city, that of City Engineer
Rundlett. being the one of widest interest.
The suit by Mr.. Rundlett was to test the
ordinance passed by the city council reducing
the salaries of all the heads of departments
of the city government. These salaries are all
f1xed by statute, but the council attempted
to override the law and force a reduction.
The result was that all the city officials
pooled issues and contributed to a fund to
fight the ordinance in court, Comptroller
McCardy contributing his mite with the
others, though he refused to sign the paper
for the formation of the pool. The district
court held that the ordinance was invalid,
and gave judgment for the full amount of
pay due Mr.. Rundlett under the law. An ap-
peal was taken, and now the lower court is
sustained.
The first reversal of the term was also
given yesterday, in the case of Osborne VS..
Gullikson, from the Norman county court
The syllabus is as follows:
Leonard w. Rundlett respondent, Us. The
City of st. Paul, appellant. Order affirmed.
Start, G. j.
1. A statute revising the subject matter
of former one. and intended a substi-
tute for 1t, operates as repeal OF the prior
act to the extent to which its provisions are
revised. And statute providing that a
previous shall be amended 80 as to
read as follows repeals everything con-
tanned in the original which is not re-
enacted.
2. Rule applied to certain laws relating to
the salary of the city engineer of the city of
St Paul. and held that sec. 13, ch. 2, S. L.
1883, repealed all prior laws giving the COM
mon council of such city power to reduce
the salary of the city engineer.
3. Held. that a certain resolution of such
council, purrorting to reduce the salary of
the city engineer as fixed by law, is void.
The syllabii in the other cases are:
George w. Meeks, respondent, VS.. The City
OF ST. Paul, appellant.
1. In an action Of tort, 1t is not enough
that the damages are in the opinion of the
court excessive to warrant the granting of
new trial on that ground; it must further
appear that they were given. under the in
Village of West Duluth; 55 Mimi, 497, fol-
lowed.
2. A motion for a new trial will not be
granted on the ground Of newly discovered
evidence where such evidence is conflicting
or cumulative, or where no facts are shown
why it could not have been discovered before
the trial by reasonable diligence. Order af-
firmed. Start C, J.
d. M. Osborne Co., appellant, VS.. G. o.
Gullikson, respondent.
l. Where the written contract of prin-
cipal sets forth or imports a consideration,
for example, a promissory note, and con-
tract OF guaranty, by third party, is
part of or is indorsed upon the note and
is delivered. simultaneously with it, the con-
sideration for the note supports the guaranty;
following Highland VS.. Dresser; 35 Minn.,
S45
g. The mere neglect of the holder of
promissory note to pursue remedy against
the maker does not discharge a guarantor
of the payment of the note; following Huger-
ford VS.. o'Brien; 81 Mimi, SO6. Order re-
yersed. Start C. j.
Edwin ]. Wheeler, respondent, VS.. F. A.
Paterson, as receiver in the matter of
Wheeler & Young insolvents appellants.
/. The fact that the name of surety, who
signs and seals a bond, is not mentioned
therein does not affect its validity. if it is
intended to be bound by it's conditions; fol-
lowing Campbell VS.. Rotering; AZ Mimi. 115.
e. Rule applied to replevin bond, in
Justice court, in which the name Of one of
the sureties, who signed and sealed the bond
was omitted from the body thereof, and held,
that the omission did not affect the juris
hear the case. Held further that such juris-
diction was not affected by the fact that the
sureties on the bond did not justify, and that
the bond was not acknowledged.
3. In an action in justice court there was
no general appearance by the defendants.
The plaintiff filed his complaint and the
cause was adjourned for three days, but the
justice omitted to state in his docket upon
whose motion the adjournment was had.
Held that the justice did not lose jurisdiction
to hear the case on the adjourned day.
Judgment affirmed. Start, C. j.
Frank Hoskns, appellant, VS. L. L. Baxter,
respondent
1. The writ OF habeas corpus, although a
constitutional and imperative writ of right,
does. not issue as matter of course to every
applicant. The petition for the writ must
show probable cause for issuing it, and
where the petition on its face shows no
sufficient prima facie ground for the dis
charge of the applicant the writ may be
legally refused.
2. Court Commissioners of this State, by
virtue of General Statues 1894, section 1882
have power to issue a warrant of arrest and
apprehend, examine, commit or bail all per-