Omaha daily bee., 1899-10-19
DECIDES In ABBOTT'S FAVOR
Supreme Court Says the B1.superintsndent
is Entitled to 81 900.
AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR WHICH He SUED
Several other Similar Claims Come
Under the Same Category aud VIII
Probably Bc Paid-The
syllabus.

LINCOLN, Oct. 1S.-(Specal THE su-
preme court this afternoon decided in favor
Of x-Superintendent L. ]. Abbott Of the State
Asylum for the Insane in his suit against the
state Tor $1,000 which amount he claimed
was due under an appropriation by the legis-
lature. The salary bill as passed by the
legislature OF 1897 provided for a salary OF
$4,000 per year for the superintendent Of the
asylum, but the bill signed by the governor
provided for salary of $4,000. Several other
claims similar to the one of DR.. Abbott have
been filed with the auditor and. according
to the decision OF the supreme court in the
case decided today, they will probably be
paid, All of these claimants as well as DR..
Abbott, asked for only their original salary,
but after the terms of Office expired claims
for the excess amounts we're at once filed.
Following is the syllabus OF the opinion:
The Syllabus.
Tho enrolled bill authenticated by the
proper officers of the houses, approved by
the governor and filed with the secretary
Of state and the journals of the houses are
the Legislature relative to the enactment of
the law and are the only competent evil
dence In a controversy in regard to the due
passage of the bill. or in respect to alleged
material errors in its substance.
Following is a quotation from the opinion:
In some cases the records of last resort
the engrossed bill In this state we have
not not decided the enrolled bill to be conclusive
IN no case up to the present has the SUI
preme court approved the reception and con-
liberation of anything more or further than
We have just stated.
After several citations OF authorities and
quotations from Nebraska cases, the opinion
continues:
The memoranda or slips of paper attached
or pinned to the original bill were clearly
titled except by their subject matter
respectively, and the fact that they were
aeed ed efe 9fe Sy S ns Sae of Soase
the legislature, and probably that they
were SO delivered occurred because they
nothing more to show that they ever be-
came or were of the proceedings of the leg,
bill were not Identified by the signature of
any person or in any other manner than
secretary Of state % by an n ofiieer e % Of the leg
1slature. The engrossed bill is not such a
that it sond bee n the o
the statements of the properly authenti-
Gated records of the acts of the legislature.
As to stolen Cattle.
In the case OF Edmon George against
the State the supreme court holds that the
crimes of stealing and receiving stolen cat
tie are separate and distinct offenses.
Edmon George in Cherry county, was
charged with larceny of cattle the first
count of an indictment and in the second
count it was alleged that he knew the same
were stolen with the intent OF defrauding
their owner A jury impaneled to try
the issues raised by general plea of not
guilty returned verdict of conviction on
the second count but made no finding nm
~ G.. - ~ - - - -, mi, :
Tie, hisI count ueorBe tneh appeaIeu ne
case was remanded and the defendant was
again found guilty and sentenced. Follow
-Ne 30 'A'e s'""oo' "a 'As oPiiio'A ~ 'iis
case: t.
The crime of stealing cattle and Of re.
SelVIns stolen catiie described IN secrof OF
distinct offenses. Where Information. ir
different courts, charges separate and dis
s1 M Gids "a anu me- anE on me ,r,, ira
but is convicted on a count charging an.
other crime, he cannot, on a new trial be
Sa was a"onitted al the fnrnner ~ ir,ai my I,
such cases the new trial can be granted
only on the count upon which conyictioi
crime CONSISTING Of. several degrees t.
charged in different counts of an informa
non tne aiiowance OF new ira, Iriai goes goes oSe We,
one issue can properly be before the cour
at one time.
.ha is @ dPpa Io Pe1u ro,cn oi "hici
A plea in bar may be disregarded IL pre-
sented while the plea of not guilty remain
''i 'ng neaa IN har need mot ha intarnosaa q
call to the attention of the court matter
OF record which snow that the accused wa
soms casn oV the ihenticni cbaree ~ mo,
which 1t is proposed to try him again.