The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-07-13
SUPREME COURT DENIES HIS AP-
PLICATION- FOR ADMISSION
TO MINNESOTA BAR
HELD NOT nd BE ELIGIBLE
Had Not Praeticed In North Dakota
Five Years After His Restoration
to the Harbour Decisions Filed,
Which Judge Ke1Iy's Ruling Is
Affirmed
Affirmed.

so the court says:
This is an application of Taylor Crum
to this court for admission to the bar
OF the state, Notwithstanding the adverse
report by the state board of. examiners in
law. 1t appears from the record and To-
los that Crum applied to the board Of
examiners for admission TO the bar under
rule !, and not otherwise, as an attorney
OF i've years standing from the state of
North Dakota. It also appears he was
admitted to the bar of that state as early
as 1890 and continued to practice as at
torney at law in all the courts Of that
state from that time until Feb. 10, 1898,
when, by a judgment of Cass county, in
that state, he was adjudged guilty Of
certain charges against him and disbar-
red, which judgment was on appeal af-
frmed by the supreme court of that
state; that subsequently April Is. 1899,
the latter court made an order readmit-
ting him as attorney and counsellor
at law in all the courts of that state
upon his taking the oath of office, but not |
reversing or modifying the Judgment pre- |
viously rendered against him.
Upon this state of facts we are of /
opinion that Crum is not an attorney of
five years standing of North Dakota
within the meaning Of rule l. To be adj |
missable under that rule the applicant |
must be an attorney of the state from
which he came at the time of his appI-
cation and have been such continuously
for five years Immediately preceding such
application. Application denied"
DECISIONS FILED.
The court handed down four decisions,
one of which reverses the conviction OF
Charles E. Johnson, of Elysian, LIE Sueur
county. The reversal is taken to mean an
acquittal of Johnson.s
J. S. Lord and Charles E. Johnson were
doing a milling business at Elysian. They
did their banking at lie Sueur, but, when
in want of cash, were in the habit of pre-
senting checks ait a bank at Elysian and
having them cashed. Their account was
finally overdrawn $4,000. When notified
by the bank of this, Lord and Johnson
| gave their note for 5000. They claimed
that the additional $500 on the note was
to secure any possible overdraft In the
| future One day Johnson had cashed at
| Elysian check for $50, and it was re- |
| turned unpaid. On this account he and
! his partner Qord( were arrested for
grand larceny. EIord was acquitted In the
! district court and johnson convicted.
The evidence showed that the firm had
been depositing and drawing out OF the
Waterville bank right along in the course
of their regular business, and that checks
had not only been :cashed for them be-
| fore but after the date of the one for
$3.50 which was refused. They had re-
duced their overdrafts by $1,000 at the
time the trouble came up. Following Is
the syllabus:
State of Minnesota, respondent vs.. John
S. Lord ct al, Charles T.. Johnson APP
peliant defendants.
Svlla bIIs-The~ defendant was convicted
under the provisions of section gu, Cen
| eral Statutes 1894, making the obtaining
with intent to defraud, the property OF
another by aid of a worthless check lar
i. That In gfvfng'-a check or draft
! party does not necessarily represent that
he then has with the drawee funds out OF
which 1t will be paid, but ne does repre-
sent by the act of passing it that 1t is a
valid order for its amount and that the
existing state of facts is such that It will
be paid in the ordinary course OF business
g That the verdict of guilty in this case
is not sustained by the evidence. Order
~ 9H Start. c. ].
RAMSEY COUNTY CASE.
Judge KeIly's decision is affirmed in an
assessment case, that for opening the al
lev between Fourth and Fifth, and Wa
couta and Rosabel streets, in this city.
The decision of Judge Kelly had been
certified to the supreme court for review,
after the assessment had been confirmed.
John Hennessy, one OF the REALTORS
successfully contested the first assess
ment against his own lot Then a re-
| assessment was made, and Hennessy
raised the objection that the city owneda
lot there, that a portion OF 1t had been
cut off, and that the city had been
awarded damages, He set up the claim
that the board of public works had not
authority to make the assessment; that
the lot of the city was dedicated to a
public purpose, and, therefore, the city
could not collect damages. The court
holds that the city occupies the same po-
| sition as a private owner and has the
| same rights The syllabus reads:
State of Minnesota ex rel, John Hen
messy, Caroline Gotham and George w.
Freeman. REALTORS, vs.. District Court of
Ramsey County. and Hon. William Louis
Kelly, Judge, respondents:
SyIlabus-1. The board of public works
| of the city of st. Paul is (the city not OBJ
| jecting) authorized by the city charter to
condemn, for public street or alley, land
| owned by the city and to award damages
| to it for such taking and to assess the
benefits of the Improvement precisely as
! If the city weresa private owner of the
property taken. -
charter to make reassessment of prop
erty benefited by a public improvement
whenever the original is set aside for any |
cause, although it was set aside only as to
! a single lot on the sole objection of its
| owner and the other lot owners have paid
| the original assessment, provided that the
aggregate sum assessed against any lot
| does not exceed its proportional share of
the benefits.
s. The chdrter provisions authorizing
| such a reaSSeSSment are constitutional
T. The finding of the trial court to the
effect that the reaSSeSsment against the
| land of the REALTORS was not demonstrable
In excess of its proportional share of the !
benefits is sustained by the evidence
Judgment affirmed. Start, G. J.
OTHER CASES.
Benjamin F. Langworthy as receiver
ETC., of the Mutual Fire Insurance COM
| pany of Chicago. respondent. VS.. the c.
|. c. Washhurn FIGURING Mills company,
/ appellant. Syllabus.
I. A mutual insurance company was
| authorized by its charter to Ensure
| dwelling houses, household furniture,
farm farm buildings and and ;, other property
| policies to the defendant on the flour
/ mills in consideration of It's premium
| notes. This is an action to collect the
amount of an assessment on the notes;
| held that the policies were valid and the
| defendant having had the benefit Of the
! insurance contract it is liable on it's notes
| 2 Held that the evidence sustains the
! findings of the trial court to the effect:
| (a) That the insurance company was au-
| thoriZed to do business in this state; (b)
! that the premium notes were given for
| a valuable consideration and were not OBJ
| tanned by fraud or false representa- lions;
| (c) that the defendants liability for leases
| occurring durfngI7 the, life of it's policies
was not settled and terminated when it
surrendered them; Id that the defendant
I Except as to one ftem,) was assessed
| only for it's prof rata share of the losses
| incurred during the period Of its member
| ship.
| g. An assessment on premium notes to
! the company ssbecome insolvent and a
| receiver has been appointed, may proper
| ly include the expenses of winding up its
| affairs.