The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-05-09
THE BLIND Pig LAW
Twas Not Repealed by the Liquor
Law Of 1901.
LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
They Are Held for Moneys Received
No Matter How They May
Lose 1t.

! the supreme court this morning
The state wins two blind pig cases, one
of which decides an important point. The
! defendant was convicted Of illegal liquor
selling under the statute Of 1894, which
provides fine and Imprisonment as pen
atty. He was fined $50 and sentenced to
| thirty days In Jail. His attorneys ap-
pealed and claimed that the blind big. act
Of 1901 repealed the penalty clause of
the old liquor law. The 1901 act pro-
yides "fine or imprisonment G. w.
'Somerby, for the state, contended that
the blind pig act was drawn to reach a
separate class of offenses and the law OF
1884 was still intact. Chief Justice Start
sustains this in his decision. He says
| it is evident that the later law is d.
rected against blind pigs and clubs
conducted for eyading the liqucr laws in
| reaches class Of offenses not included
| in the prior law. The syllabus says:
State Of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Hugh Nc
Coy, appellant. $st1t !hs@StE
Chapter 252 Of laws Of 1901 prohibiting and
furnishing the maintaining OF blind pigs or
places or devices for tho unlawful sale OF
Intoxicating liquors does not repeal any part
of general statues 1894, section 2D29 proyiG-
ing for the punishment of the sale of such
Liquors without license. Judgment affirmed.
- - r>,%str+. - <st2 fi-.Es .--Stsrt,-C. j..
The other case, which came up from
Yellow Medicine county. is decided as
follows: --..-r 20
State Of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Ole H.
| Lewis appellant. er
/ Certain rulings Of the court upon the ad-
missibility of evidence and certain state
ments Of the court made when instructing the
| jury, considered, and found not to constitute
prejudicial error. Order affirmed
! The Kipps of st. Paul are turned down
| in another tax case, in. which they at
| tempted to redeem lands from tax sale
| without paying delinquent taxes for pre-
! vious years. The syllabus in the case
| says: =: -= s2'5ssE
State of Minnesota ex rel. Sylvester Kipp and
Orrin Kipp, respondents. VS.. Walter Peltier,
county attorney of Todd county, Minnesota,
appellant.
+ m To redeem from sale made in May, 1900,
under the forfeiture: tax law of 1859, the
owner is required to pay, not only the amount
for which the land was sold. but also the
taxes; delinquent for the years 1896, 1897 and
! 1893. Order reversed. e Lewis, ].
A public officer who receives money in
trust is liable for its loss, no matter how
| the loss occurs. This is decided in case
brought by the Northern Pacific against
| John Owens, clerk Of the district court of
| ST.. Louis county, who lost money de-
posted with hi1n5 in condemnation pro-
ceedings by the faituresof, a bank. The syl-
labus: -" IL be5.255 90 -
| Northern Pacific, Railway company, appellant,
VS.. John Ovens 20 David T.. Adams and
Robert T. Ovens, respondents.
| First-Where statute either in direct terms
or from its general tenor Imposes the duty
upon public officer oa pay over moneys re-
ceived and held by him in his. official capacity,
the obligation thus supposed is an absolute
one, unless it is limited by the statute impos-
ing the duty, or by the conditions of his
official. bond. In Respect to, such liability
there is no distinction between public and
private funds. fn-7 Ah5s .~r.yf.z.s. H.. =
| Second-The defendant her Elm received in his
| official capacity as clerk OF the district court
| money paid into court in condemnation pro-
| ceedings which he deposited in his name as
clerk in a solvent bank which afterwards
Failed, whereby the money was lost without
his fault. Held, that he and the sureties on
his official bond are liable for such loss
Order reversed J Start C. J.
= Other decisions filed to-day were as fol-
lows: .
Houston County.
Helen j. McArthur,, appellant, vs. Frederick
| W. Clark ct al, respondents.
Fdrst-The rules of pleading, practice and
.evidence applicable. to civil actions generally
apply to action for partition, under chapter
"A. G. S. 1884.
Second-A general allegation in pleading
Of ownership of real property. in either g
legal or equitable action, is sufficient to admi,
pleading. '.'.-.
Third-The conaplaint4in this action, one TO,
the partition of real property, alleged in gen.
eral terms plaintiffs ownership Of an undi.
Wded portion of the land sought to have par.
titioned, and defendants interest therein; de-
PENDANTS answered, (a) by general denial
and, (b) alleging in general terms that de.
PENDANTS were the owners of the property
Held, that evidence of title by adverse pos
session was admissible under the answer; The
effect of such evidence was more to effect
bar to plaintiff $ right of action for it estab
lished a legal title In defendants and wa.
competent under the general allegation O.
ownership. - tkE.5-&@t:
Order affirmed. - Brown. J.
- >'.' Clay County,
George ;Jenkinson. !, appellant, VS.. John Koes
ter, respondent. i. .,
First-Order granting a new trial. afte
verdict for plain tiff. on the ground that tn,
evidence DIS insufficient TO sustain the verdict
. Sustained under the rule laid down in Hicks
| VS.. St one Is Mimi: 1913. 80