Omaha daily bee., 1903-01-17

or by sufficient averments I'm the answers.
T. An aNcrment in the answer, cuuChed In
the iansusse OF q genera Hemutrer 10 thS
insufficient to interpose the defense Of the
statute OF limitations.
nSl3 chicago, burlington y Quincy Rau-
road COMPANY against Winfrey. Error from
Nemaha. Affirmed. Hulcomb. j.
question OF fact when supported by sum
Client competent evidence will not be dis
turbed by q reviewing court, even though.
from an examination OF the record, the
evidence seems To prepnnderate to the con-
trary.
?. 1t is the gettled law Of this state that
whom I'm the operation Of n train carrying
passengers an injury results To one OF them
the imputation of negligence arises and the
LIABILITY to respond IN 1amages becomes
fixed unless 1t Is made to appear that the
injury arose from the criminal negligence
Of the passenger or was the result OF the
violation Of some express rule or reguIa-
ton Of the carrier actually brought to the
notice OF the party injured.
8. Ordinarily the existence OF negligence
such as will Justify or defeat a right OF
recovery for damages for an injury received
by a passenger while being transported by
a railway company is for the jury TO deter
mine as 1t determines other questions OF
fact.
4. Where upon an issue Of fact raised by
a plea OF contributory negligence the testi-
mony is conflicting, or where the evidence
as a whole is of such a character as that
reasonable minds might fairly draw DIFF
ferent conclusions therefrom IL Is for the
jury and not the court to determine the
5. 1t Is only where the facts are not in
controversy or the evidence is of such a
character as but one rational inference can
be drawn therefrom that the court Is war
ranted I'm determining the question OF negli-
gence as "A matter OF law.
6. 1t Is not necessarily gross negligence
in every ease for a passenger 10 attempt
TO leave a. train, even though at the time 1t
be In motion.
Z. Contributory negligence on the part
7 of a passenger which will avoid n recovery
must be an act committed under such cir
D nnH0GfnnnnG rs IN TnnnnR IL nhNfAFqlN md
necessarily perilous and to show a willful
disregard OF the danger incurred thereby.
3. Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant
, Company's train; when she had reached her
destination and while attempting to leave
the car in which she was riding and before
she had reached the door the train began
to move and she was compelled TO choose
Instantly and without time. for reflection
as TO her course of action and continued
the act OF alighting from the train ard In
doing so was injured thereby, held, that
bar a recover and that The question OF
contributors negligence was properly sub
mitted to the jury and its determination
O. Criminal negligence as used III the
statute which will defeat a recovery for an
inJnry received by.a passenEsr Is dehned
to a reckless disregard of ones own safety
and n .willful Indifference to the .conss-
auence liable to follow. Chicago, Burlington
& Quincy Railroad company against Porter,
10. Evidence examined and held suficient
20 support the verdict OF the jury. F-
II. Certain instructions complained OF
Civen to the Jury examined and held not
20 be prejudicially erroneous.
1888. Citizens State bank OF Newman
Grove against More. error from Boone.
Reversed. Lobingier, G., division No. 1.
l. In this state a statute Will not be con-
strued 50 rs 10 make a negotiable instru-
ment void In the hands of a hona hde pur-
chaser unless the act specifically so de-
clares.
2. A note given for medical services by an
unlicensed practitioner may be recovered
on by a bona hde purchaser, notwithstand-
ing the provisions Of chapter 55 OF the Com
piled Statutes prohibiting the practice OF
medicine without a license,
1876. Fremont Brewing company against
Hansen. Error from Dodge. Former judg-
ment %Vacated; affirmed. DUNE, c., division
No. 3.
l, Evidence examined and found to sup
port the finding of the jury.
1l45g. National Life Insurance company
against County OF Dawes. Reversed. Sedg-
wick, J,
/. The purpose OF the requirement that
county warrants shall express on their
face the amount levied and appropriated to
the fund upon which they are drawn, and
the amount already expended OF such sum,
Is to guard against the over drawing OF
warrants against the fund.
?. A county warrant, in excess OF IS per
Is void. The county board cannot estop
the county to assert the invalidity OF such
warrant by indOrsing on the warrant n
false statement OF the amount OF the levy
which makes the warrant on its face ap-
pear to be within the statutory limit. Bacon
against Dawes county ~ n, w. Rep, 313.
followed.