Omaha daily bee., 1902-06-06
SUPREME COURT SYLLABl.

These opinions will not be officially re-
= 1896. Western Union Telegraph Com
pany against Church. Error from Jeffer-
SON. Affirmed. kirkpatrick, c. Division
No. l. Unreported.
/. An objection to an entire question
put to a witness calling for testimony part
Of which is admissible and part inadmis-
sible IL properly overruled and error can
not be pTedicated on such ruling.
2; Objections to the admission Of evidence
toned in briefs filed in this court, will not
be considered.
3. The testimony of a medfcai expert is
not Objectionable as being conjectural and
speculative because II gives the opinion of
such expert as to the probability of a ply
sician's accomplishing a certain result In a
given time II he had been in attendance
upon a woman in confinement
1. 1t is the duty of one objecting to a
question asked a witness to state the
grounds upon which he relies for the eX-
clusion OF the preferred testimony SO that
in mind; and an objection based upon
ground not disclosed at the time such OBJ
lection is made will be disregarded on APP
peal.
5. An objection to the form of a hypo-
thetical question asked of a medical cx-
pert on the ground that IL permitted the
witness to consider the subjective condi-
tions in giving his opinion should be made
at the trial or ii will be unavailing.
6. The following telegram was delivered
to a telegraph company for transmission
II appeared that the professional character
Of the addressee was well known to the
agents OF the company at DOtn the sending
and receiving offices. Held, sufficient, to
charge the company with knowledge that
the telegram was urgent and required rea-
sonable promptness in Its delivery.
Z. In an action against q telegraph com
pany for negligent failure 10 deliver a
telegram the damages recoverable are such
as flow naturally and directly from the
failure of the company to deliver the tele-
gram. or such as II may be deemed would
have been in the contemplation of the par
ties had they at the time the telegram was
delivered for transmission directed their
attention to the probable and natural con-
sequences of a breach on the part of the
company. -
company for failure to deliver a message
summonlng a physician to attend a woman
in contnepent, in consequence of such
delay the physician does not arrive until
after his services are no longer required
substantial damages may be recovered for
ing caused TO the mother by reason OF the
g. Where by reason of the delay IN de-
livering such message the labor of a
woman in confinement is unduly prolonged
a verdict for $3.50 as damages for the add
count Of the physicians failure TO attend is
not so excessive as to be presumptively
The fgss gesul Ke Of PaSsiG aga ans pTBs ar y Error
from Johnson. Affirmed. Day, c. Divl-
sion No. l. Unreported.
l. In an action against a married woman
on a note executed by her as surety for
another coyerture is q complete defense,
made with the intention on her part Of
binding her separate estate for its pay.
ment. Smith V. Bond, So Neb., 529, fol-
q Evidence and held to sup
port the findings and Judgment Of the trial
ii620. Candy against Estate William C.
Bissell. Error from Richardson. Reversed.
Pound. c. Division No. 2. Unreported.
/. Whether a particular fact sought to be
proved as too remote is a question that
cannot be determined according ling TO- any
stances OF the particular case and the rela-
ton of the fact in question to other evil
dence must be taken into account.
2. Evidence is not to be rejected neces-
sariiy because It does not bear directly
upon the Issue; If it forms a link IN the
establish the fact in controversy by
strengthening the, probabilities on one side
should be received.
1855, Raynor against City OF wymore.
Error from Gage. Reversed. Day. c. Divi-
i. An instruction which assumes the
fSS ss no rt q e f6 snG o. t theTe T beiGg inc me- ! eTiy
dence in support thereof, is erroneous.
2 Instructions examined and held to be
conflicting and consequently erroneous and
1850. Andrew against whitwer.. Appeal
Division No. 2 Unreported.
/. When a party acts as agent for both
good faith, honesty and fairness on his
part and will not adjudge the speeihc per;
had been entered into with perfect fair
ness and without misapprehension or mis-
representation Morgan v. Hardy, l6 Neb.,
43f, followed.
q Evidence examined and held SUFFICIENT
to sustain the judgment OF the district
court.
ISIS. Frenzer against Lee. Error from
Douglas. Affirmed. Hastings, c. Division
No. /. Unreported.
Where It appears that a piece Of prop
ertv had been listed with a real estate
broker as a whole. and his sole authority Is
to negotiate a sale as a whole. ana MS
negotiations TO so sell IL TO a particular
customer have been broker on, a subse-
0uent sale some months later OF a portion
only of the property by the owner 20 the
purchaser with whom the broker'E nego-
%tiations were had, but Independently, VIII