Omaha daily bee., 1902-12-27
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI

12S6S. Woodward against Kavan. Appeal
from Douglas. Affirmed. Dufie, c., divi-
sion No. 3. Unreported.
1889. Reiss against Argubright. Appeal
from Lancaster. Affirmed. Pound, c., divi-
sion No. 2. Unreported.
1924. Strahnka against Kettle. Error
from Dixon. Judgment. Ames, c., division
l. Persons engaged in selling intoxicating
liquors under license obtained pursuant to
the laws of this state are not liable for
damages resulting from a like traffic before
they engaged in the business, and they
cannot be Joined in an action against other
persons to recover for such previously in
hlcted damages, although they may be
liable to the same plaintiff for subsequent
wrongs of a similar kind.
2. Persons engaged In selling intoxicating
liquors under licenses obtained pursuant to
the laws of this state are liable in damage
for ali the legitimate and proximate conse-
quences of their traffic, and II they have
induced habitual drunkenness In a preyl-
ously sober and Industrious man they are
liable for a consequent thriftless and dissi-
pated career, followed ny him. after they
have ceased to furnish him with liquors.
1894. Miles against Walker. Error from
Frontier. Affirmed. Hastings, c., division
l. Where a statement of a party to his
attorney before instttuing a criminal prose-
cutton Included a statement of facts claimed
to have been personally known to tho
prosecuting witness, a jury which decides
that such statement. OF facts was untrue
was justihed in holding the attorneys adj
vice given with reference to such state
ment 10 be no defense.
2. In an action for malicious prosecution
the facts as to whether or not the accused
person was guilty of other offenses similar
in character TO the one charged In the COM
plant against him is immaterial.
3 An instruction which submits to the
jury as an issue in the case. a question of
fact. which is admitted by the pleadings is
properly refused.
4. An instruction which csfnes malice
substantially In the terms approved in the
case OF tucker against Cannon, 80 Neb.,
445, Is not erroneous for that reason.
8. Telling the jury TO constitute probable
cause, there must be enough facts and cir
c~umstances TO warrant Ia cautious man
In believing the accused guilty" is not re-
NersiDle error where defendant himself has
asked to have the question of the existence
OF probable cause submitted to the Jury.
.. Plaintiffs discharge by an examining
magistrate Is admissible in evidence as
tendlng to show want OF probable cause for
the criminal complaint against him.
I. Malicious prosecution is an attack upon
reputation and plaintiff In an action for
i, II successful, is entitled to recover his
damages from that cause.
). A court reporters evidence, In which
he swears from his notes to previous state
ments OF a witness. should not be stricken
out merely because the reporter admits on
cross-eXamination that he has no reeollec-
ton independent OF his notes.
lZ4S. Chicago House Mrecking COMPANY
against Stewart Lumber Company. Error
from Douglas. Affirmed. Ames, c., div
/. When. in an action for damages for an
alleged breach OF a contract, a party re.
quests OF the court, ~alternatively, two in
consistent instructions, with respect to the
Interpretation of the agreement, and ar
example OF what would CONSTITUTES a breaeh
thereof, and the court accepts and gives
one OF such requests and refuses the other
such party cannot complain that the eourt
erred In making the refusal. By such con