Omaha daily bee., 1902-11-29
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI.

No. 1884. State ex rel Blessing against
Davis. Quo Warranto. Judgment as prayed.
i. The tinted States census reports show
ing the population Of a county Is not con-
elusive evidence Of the facts sought to be
q. Other competent evidence may be re-
sorted to for the purpose of m the
number Of Inhabitants OF a county at any
3 The findings of a referee on questions
Of fact have the force and effect OF a yer.
supported by sufficient evidence.
e. Evidence In the case at bar examined
and held sufticient to support the innings OF
8. sections 2oOsa and 2SOsb of the Compiled
Statutes OF Nebraska, 1901, are unconstitu-
tional and void because the act. by which
they were sought to be enacted into law
and Incorporated in the statutes tailed 70
receive on its final passage In the house OF
representatives a constitutional majority
OF the votes of the members Of that body.
No. 1854. Wales against Warren. APP
peal from Otoe county. Affirmed. Dufie,
C., division Nc. 3.
L subdivision of section SO Of the act
eminent and powers of cities of the second
class having more than 5000 inhabitants.
approved March l, 1888, makes provision for
the sitting OF the city council as a board
for paving and other special improvements.
2 The tax sale eertincate ana receipIs nOs
facie evidence of the validity of the taxes
which they, represent. ure against Reich
enberg, SO N. w. Rep, E4.
3. Where the charter of a city provides
that all street railway companies now eX-
listing, or hereafter organized therein. shall
be required to pave or repave between, ana
to one foot beyond their outer rails, at their
own cost" the city council had no authority
to assess the adjoining lot owner with the
cost of paving such part of the street;
No. 12722. ,Goldsbury against state Error
| from Nemaha. Reversed. Sullivan, CO.
IA motion for a change of venue In a
criminal prosecution is addressed to. the
sound discretion of the trial court and I'M
less there has been an abuse thereof It's
ruling on the motion cannot be disturbed.
2. II from the showing made in support
of and against the motion for a change or
venue in a criminal case there Is no reason
able ground shown on which TO FOUND a
belief that the accused cannot have a tair
and impPr tial trial in the county where the
offense is alleged to have been committed
It is not error TO deny such motion.
3. Held, in the case at har, the order or
the trial court overruling a motion for a
change of venue is without error.
4. Where defendants are accused OF buy
ing and receiving stolen property. know1ng
1t TO be stolen. with intent to defraud the
owners thereof, 1T is competent for the
prosecution TO offer testimony OF other al
legged receiyings of stolen property closely
related in time, from one OF the parties
connected with the delivery In the principal
offense charged, for the purpose OF proving
!. Where the facts and circumstances
surrounding the collateral onenses are re-
lated to and so connected with the principal
onfense charged as to logically warrant the
Inference Of guilty k1oWiedEe IN receipt OF
evidence of the collateral offenses Is COM
petent and material even though the person
> from whom the property was received In
/ the cohateral transactions was not the only
| bne concerned In the delivery of the prop
erty constituting the principal onense
6. Held, in the case at bar. as disclosed
by the record, the testimony relating 70
other alleged receivtngs OF stolen property
from one White, a witness offered by the
state, was properly admissible in evidence
for r tss PgF q sse Of pERi TS 3 S SSSsl5S k foP TSiss
defendants were tried.
Z. The fact that the prosecution offered
as TO the oftense charged does not preclude
the state from also Offering testimony OF
collateral offenses closely related in time
and circumstance, for the same purpose.
s. Where an accused Is on trial for buying
and receiving stolen property, knowtng Y
mony OF other alleged receivings OF stolen
property from the same person concerned
oha Tse of BOTH prior. a sne subsedSent to the
time of the offense as laid in the informa-
tion where such collateral transactions are
8. Where a witness testified as TO col
lateral transactions in which stolen prop
efty was alleged to have been delivered to
the accused; held. that testimony i~ncidently
given as to the larceny OF other property
not delivered to the accused was not err
TO- Nor does the fact that such witness
: has entered into details Of the several
delivered stolen property to the defendants
at other times than the one for which they
n were being tried render the ADMISSION OF
a such testimony erroneous. i
4 II. Where the evidence OF collateral Of
4 lenses is admitted for the purpose OF show
q ing guilty knowledge In receiving stoler
4 property an instruction Is not erroneoui
: because II omits to instruct the jury tina
4 the receipt of stolen property in the col
= lateral transaction must nave been witt
: knowledge that II was stolen property.
III u. An intent 10 defraud Is an essentia
a element of the crime OF receiving stoieT
Is, It Is error for the court to instruer
the jury that they may convict the defend
n ant without finding a specific fact which
constitutes one of the essential Ingredient
n Of the offense charged.
a. In the trial OF an information charging
a felony the presiding Judge is withou
n lawful authority to determine the issue, O
any OF the questions OF fact involved Il
n the Issue. That power belongs eXclusivel!
20 the jury, regardless OF the state of tn
a evidences. They must be fully satisfied o
m the existence OF every fact constituting al
element Of the crime charged and II ann
"a be assumed that they are so satisfied be
cause they ought 20 be.
Is. The law does not presume the exist
enoe OF a fraudulent Intent from the fac
M that a party received stolen property Wit
N knowledge Of the theft