Omaha daily bee., 1896-10-24
SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS.

October 90. 1S96,-Court mot pursuant to
adjournment. JohnIw. Parish. A. Pizey,
s. @. Williams and=w. L. Moran were adj
mitted to practice. Patrick Land company
against Bank, dismissed; Dorsey against
Mutual Loan and,rTrust company and
Curtis against Omaha. affirmed.
october n, iS96.hCHnppcll against Smith,
advanced; Brown AGAINST Bose. leave to
fmend Bendyp peilI0n Bailey E@inst
Hogue against ogle motion to auash sum
mons mons overruied;a Dawes county, against
ceptlons oyerruleds Baldwin against Fisher,
leave TO hle petition denied, appeal dis
missed; Reed aganst Field, motion, to
bach against Omaha. suggestion OF
dlminution allowed; Harrington against
Houston, motion to dismiss overruled;
johnson against Hawver bill of exceptions
quashed. .rf
october %, 1S96-watson against Day,
motion to quash bill of exceptions over
ruledi GodwV against Eacrett, affirmed;
Donahoe against Nelson, Everson against
Graves, Ihomas against Etwein and state
eN rel. Mahoney against Mcintosh, order
70 snow cause why proceedings should not
be dismissed; Omaha Illuminating company
against Clarke, O'Keefe against Coyle and
Perrin against korsmerer Plumbing and
Heating company. dismissed Caster
against Nordgren and Alexander Lumber
company against Nordgren, order of re-
Court adjourned till November 4, at 10
n. M, at which time the following causes
VIII be called; Steele against Wickstrom,
langan against Binfield, Red Willow
county against Davis, Behrends against
iB5eSyisehlag, ley Bates against Phoenix Pub
Clark against Marolf. Union Stock Yards
National bank against Stoddard, jackson
against South Omaha Live Stock exchange,
Estabrook against Stevenson, Eggleston
against Slusher, Montgomery against AL
bion National bank, Gibson against Sidney
Bellamy nsainst Chambers, Ashland Land
and Live Stock company against Woodford
Chicago, Burlington & quincy Railroad
company against Nemaha county, Stephens
against Westside Improvement company
Knapp against Jones, Campbell Printing
Press and Manufacturing company against
Marder, Luce & Co., Glade against Her
polsheimer, Branch against United States
National bank of Omaha. Lindner against
Adams County bank, Shafer against Hos
teller Doom against Parish, Baum Iron
company against Union Savings bank
Brasch against Brasch, Pollock against
Smith, Thompson against Shelton, Tecum-
sch National bank against Russell
lilan against Murphy. Rogers against Cen
trail Loan and Trust company, Edgerton
against state cx rel strickler. Ketten-
bach against Omaha Life association
Griffing against Curtis. Renard against
Thomas. Western Wheeled Scraper COM
pany against Sadileli Jones against Wiesen
Meredith against City of Omaha, Harris
against Beckwith.
Syllabi of cases decided follow:
Opinion. by Chief. Justice Fost. "
"A wife. who by means of conveyance
from her husband acquires property eX-
empt, as the homestead of the family,
takes the title thereof unlncumbered by
the purpose OF such conveyance may have
been to defraud creditors of the latter. Nun
son against Carter 20 Neb., Az.
Section /, chapter xxxvi. Compiled
Statues, eXempts TO those persons within
Is y c,p proyisions ~ homstead not exceeding
brances. The exemption IN such cases is
determined not from the value of the fee
against TqI1stt Anderson; p Neb.. $50: -.
Montgomery; Error from Douglas county.
Reversed; Opinion by Judge, Norval.
An An ordinance ,n Of the city of the second
10000 inhabitants, which carries a penalty
for violation OF It's provisions, before
at least one week in n newspaper published
within r,,,gC such city or in phampies FORM for
2. If published in a, daily paper one in
Sertion Is not sufficient. but must be pub
iished In each issue thereof for one week.
may be proved by the, certificate of the city
clerk under the seal of the corporation. If
was not published for the statutory time,
It Is not admissible in evidence without
4. An exception to instructions en- masse
Is unavaillng unless each paragraph thereof
5. An assignment in a motion for n new
trial that n group of Instructions is err
roneous, Is insufficient, II one OF them Is
Omaha & Republican Valley Railway
somIads ssompaany a;iI, against WTight Error error from pm
Commissioner Ragan.
A general allegation of negligence is
such an allegation evidence Of any fact
which contributed to the injury sued for
Is competent and relevant
2. Where n pleader relies upon one or
more specific acts or omissions as negli
gence then evidence of any act or omis
sinNNu
Is irrelevant.
8, The first and second points of the
syllabus of Omaha & Republican Valley
Hallway company against Wright ct al, 6s
n. W., S2, dlsapproved.
company against Mccarthy Error from
Douglas county. Reversed and remanded
Opinion by. Commissioner Irvine.
A servant generally does not assume the
risk of dangers due to his masters negli-
eence. nor does he in all cases assume the
risk of dangers arising from sudden un-
foreseen circumstances, not ordinarily in
cdent to the employment.
2. When master gives servant a COM
mand requiring the doing of an act not
within the usual scope OF the servants
duty whch must be psTfUrmed f at once or
tion, the servant is not charged with con-
tributory negligence in the performance,
apparent to him in the performance of the
act, unless the danger was so patent that a
prudent man would not have obeyed
g. In such case the master may be neg
ligent in giving the command, although
the servant was not Negligent In obeylng
II.
T. The test of contrlbutory negligence in
such cases as in others Is whether the
servant in obeying conducted himself as n
man of ordinary prudence would conduct
himself under the circumstances. An in
struction that the servant was not neg
lgent unless one but n reckless or
foolhardy man would have obeyed, is
therefore erroneous.
Barney against State. Error from Holt
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Commits
sioner Irvine.
A district judge may for any lawful
cause discharge regular panel of the
petit jury and direct the sheriff to call
other Jurors to take its place.
g The fact that the jury was Illegally
drawn is n sufficient cause for discharging
II from service.
g. The fact that all or nearly all Jurors
upon the regular panel disqualified
from sitting in any remaining to be
tried at the term Is n sufficient cause for
dscharging the panel.
A. The provision of section 465 a of the
criminal code are not exclusive. but are to
be construed in connection with SECTION
664 of the civil code.
g. Therefore, when the causes exist which
authorize the court to order a special
venire under section 465 n of the criminal
code, the court may, instead of so doing
in its discretion the regular panel being
disqualified from sitting in other Gases
during the term, discharge that panel and
direct a new jury to he drawn under the
provisions OF section G6i.