Omaha daily bee., 1902-08-09

In the Zee charged n received for the
transcript. Held. that the exactfon Of fees,
10 ths special appearance. aid not render
the justice liable for the statutory penalty
for taking Illegal fees.
this 2lth day Of July. fSse. followed BY the
oficial signature Of the Justice OF the
peace, endorsed on an appeal bond, u not
therefor. as such. by the justice. is illegal,
q The words filing 4 petition. bill Of
z case" IN section II Chapter xviii. Conn
piled Statutes. includes an appeal bond,
4 The penalty provided IN said section
follows not only the taking OF greater fees
than those specified for services rendered.
but also the taking OF fees for services
other than those specified In section II.
1ef16 Cuyler against LILLY. Appeal from
Custer. Affirmed. Holoomb, J.
l.. Objections 70 CONFIRMATION Of sale OF
closure proceedings examined and held that
the order confirming the sale IL without
isel5. Merrill against state. Error from
Clay. Affirmed. Holcomb, ].
l. The provisions Of the act Of the legis-
(chapter xxxiii, Compiled Statutes. 1901.
creating n food commission, making the
governor the food commisgloner, providing
for the appointment OF a deputy food com
missioner and defining the duties OF the
officers 30 provided for. does not c~ontravene
The provissons Of section 9s article y q
mo other executive state once shall be
continued or created and the duties now
devoivinR upon officers not provided for
by this constitution shall be performed by
the officers herein created"
2 Nor. does said act conflict. with section
n article VIII. Of the constitution. declaring
that no bill shall contain more than one
!. Where a part Of an act has been de-
plete and perfect IN all Its parts. and r.
capable Of execution. It will be upheld and
enforced unless e Is apparent that the
adoption of the remainder.
T. Held. that the part Of the act under
propriatioh for the salary Of the deputy
food commissioner, which has been de-
clared invalid. was not an inducing element
1866 Randolph against State. Error from
Merrick. Affirmed. Holcomb. ].
J. II is not q good ground Of challenge
665, Code OF Civil Procedure. that a juror
who has been summoned on the regul n
panel which has been quashed on a cb1-
moned under a special venire at the same
term of court or would the challenge be
the sane term Of court before the chai.
lenke to the array was sustained.
2 Alleged irregularities ia the issuance
the regular guar panel oe Jurors ~" Which have IN
nowise been called 20 the attention OF the
trial court, nor IL mentioned In the motion
" - NAAAAn III 10 COAANlu0LC4I III NAAD
appellate court on review BY proceedings
Alleged srror in the admission Of Ger.
tain evideLce examined and found not well
taken.
4 The signing Of a fictitious nane OF a
person to an irstrSM T whisn T. the sub
fraud, II n false and fraudulent making of
such Instrument and constitutes the offense
lzTs2. State against city OF AIianee.
Error from Box Butte. Judgement Hol-
l. Whether a city council which has BY
order granted a license to an applicant to
cell intoxicating liquors, mo formal license
having been issued. can an adjourned meet
action granting such license an reject me
application, without notice to Applicant
2. II Is within the absolute discretion Of
the IcensIns authcrIt,ss 70 refuse q Iicsnse
or municipality OF the state.
B. Where the rafnc IL licensed and regu-
lated in pursuance OF the law regulating
the sale OF Intoxicating liquors and ordin.
ances of the municipalities OF the state.
those authorised to grant a Ecenss to such
a. apply therefor In passing on an applica-
ton act in a quasi judicial capacity ind
lies to the district court by any party In
|teFogted in such application
4 Such licensing authorities in passing
only q legal discretion ana have not a
right TO exercise arbitrary and caprlcioua
discretionary power regarding u c applica-
6. Held, in the case at bar. that the re-
lators are entitled to q. writ OF mandamus
to correct an abuse Of arbitrary exercise
HISS. Hoover & Sons against mi
Error from LANCASTER Reversed and re-
manded. Barnes. c.. division No. T.
1. In a suit for damages the giving OF an
instruction which in substance informs the
jury. that Il from the EVIDENCE they ind
at such sum, within the amount claimed.
which Is $500. as they think he has sus-
his betltion and which thus siim fiasssH ths
consideration of the evidence in fixing the
amount OF recovery. is reversible error.
2. Evidence examined and held that the
verdict returned by the Jury Is excessive
and the amount thereof is not sustained By
the evidence.
braska the following opinions win be ON
r l9.ss- tr ssn'' K sESinst 5snn e qbs n1 ! a g.
1850 barge against Haalann. Error from
Pound, c. Division No. 2. -
i. Under sections lsS and 4se, Code Of
Ss procsagrs, the trial court after yer
ment or consideration Of some point Of law
and on consideration thereof render such
udgmen as Ought to be had In view Of its
Z This power exists only With reference
e s9Seaao o Po ne s Of iaw arisias npcn The
- - - - A&k aAAAN0
question whStksr. under the svidsnecs. the
plaintiff 10 entitled to recover,
B. II the trial court 10 OF opinion that, in
view OF plaintin's evidence. At erred In sub
have directed a verdict for the defendant
the proper course IL TO grant q new trial.
a. Where a case IL reserved after YER
dict for further consideration the point or
points OF law, upon. which. # Il reserved
1918. Harrison National Bank against
Austin Appeal from Chase. Affirmed.
kirkpatrick, G. Division No. /.
l. Where one has placed HIS agent for the
Investment. Of some money IN. notes and
business usagee. would be justified In re-
garding such agent as having full au-
thority with reference 10 the extension.
collection, etc, OF such notes and mort
cages. payment 90 such agent win be
2. That a party to whom money due an
other Is paid Is not In possession OF the
! evidences OF the indebtedness IL not con-
| elusive OF the question OF authority or lack
Of It 20 make the collection; such authority
acts. through. a series OF transactions re-
/ lnting TO q like business, have been uni
/ formly ratified by the creditor.
& Evidence examined and found TO sus-
tain the nndinss and Judgment Of the trial
1855. Cook AGAINST Gage County. AppeaI
from Gaee. Affirmed. SedgWfck, J..
4. The notice required by Subdivision q
section 81. article n, chapter XIV. Compiled
Statutes OF 1893, Is jurlsdlctional and equal.
ration ana levy made without such NOTES
iiSsS o,shea against K~ayenaush. Erro.
FROM Platte. Reversed. Kirkpatrick, G
Division No. l.