The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-01-05
LOWER COURT REVERSED IN HALF
OF THE CASES UNDER CON-
SHERATON.
INSURANCE COMPANY LOSES.
APPELLANTS IN A SUIT WHERE
THE TRADERS WE'RE RE
SPONDENTS WIN.
DISTRICT COURT OPEN AGAIN
Grand Jury Mcets-Assignme O1
Work by the Judges-Other
Court News

The supreme court yesterday handed
down the following decisions:
The Traders Insurance Company, respond
ents VS.. William Herber ct al, defendants,
Herman c. StreIow ct al, appellants.
l. The statement of a witness as to the
his knowledge, but the existence OF winch
is susceptible Of direct proof; helo 10 De MS
mere conclusion and not evidence, on whlch
a verdict can be sustained.
Held, Withholding the commission or
insurance agents, while permitting them TO
perform their duties as such agents. did not
have the effect in this case OF releasing the
suret;es on their bond for the faithful per-
Torrance of their duties.
g. H. was the agent of plaintiff insurance
company, and was short in his accounts. he
formed a partnership with 2. to carry on
the agency business, and II. and P. as prln-
cipals and the other defendants as sureties,
executed a bond TO the company conditioned
for the faithful performance OF h. and T.
of these duties as such agents; at the time the
bond was executed the sureties did not know
that H. in default, in suit on the
bond
Held, in such cases, it is ordinarily the
duty of the obligee N the bond to disclose
to the suretie5 the fact that the principal
in the bond is already in defaudt, and fall
ure to do so is evidence of bad faith, which
will discharge the sureties, and whether in
this case the company was guilty of bad
faith in failing to disclose to the sureties that
H. was short in his accounts is a question for
the jury. Order reversed. -Canty, j.
Michael A. Brattland, respondent, VS.. w. w.
Calkins, appellant.
l. An attempt to establish under sections
10 and II, General Statutes 1894 an election
precinct out of portions of two counties, is
an absolute nullity, and the residents of the
territory included in such alleged precinct,
have no more right to vote than If such pre-
cnict had never been established.
2. Section 10 requires the voters to petit
ton the governor at least eight weeks before
election to establish the precinct and section
IL is construed to require the list of pre-
cincts established to be published at least
six weeks before election.
Held, these provisions are mandatory, and
when the petition was presented not more
than five weeks and five days before election,
and the list of precincts established was not
published earlier than the day before cleo
ton; the precinct was not established at all
for the purposes of such election.
3. Whether the state authorities have power
to organize for election purposes the White
Earth Indian reservation, quere.
Whether the governor, under section 10 and
IL, or the board of county commissioners.
under section 500. General Statutes 1894, should
organize election precincts in territory hav-
ing no township organization in a county Or
gained to the extent that Norman county is
quere. Judgment affirmed. -Canty, j.
Frank E. Mix, respondent, VS.. James H. Eye
as sheriff of Hennepin county, appellant
l. Certain evidence given on redirect
examination held competent as explain
ing more fully a fact brought out on cross
examination. and as showing all the trans
actions of the plaintiff and his vendor in re-
gard to the property purcha~ed.
2 Certain other evidence given on redi-
rect examination held competent to rebut an
inference which might be drawn from the
cross-examination.
3. The issue in this action was whether the
property in question was transferred to the
plaintiff to defraud creditors.
Held under the circums tances, it was not
error to refuse to receive in evidence the
records in an action brought by another
creditor of the alleged fraudulent vendor in
which action writ of attachment (prior to
that sued out by defendants) was issued and
lev.ed :, on sc. some Of the same property, just
4 finder o c1oino +b aSo'i . VI H.
been sold by the debtor to NJ and by M. to
plaintiff. held it was not error to receive in
evidence the bill Of sale from the debtor to NJ
D. Held, defendants first request to charge
ignores the fact that NJ. may have been an
innocent purchaser. whose rights plaintiff NAV
have acquired, and was therefore properly re-
fused. Other un:mportant rulings considered
Order affirmed.
E@s