Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-06-17
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
CONTINUED From Page TwO.)

and our travelling statesmen are not
authorized to sell it, and of other wit
nesses to the same effect. stands in
the record uncOntradicted Shape in
his deposition stated that he was not
SO empowered but his answer was
excluded. He also stated that his
charging $101.25 for the forty five half
barrels wa sa mistake. The amount
Of the bill he made up roughly and ap.
parently without proper data for pre-
sentation to the assignee was $869.75
but the bookkeeper of the keg depart
ment OF the plaintiff testified that the
balance due from Ecker was $381.95.
His debts amounted to about $4,000.
After payment of expenses the as
signee had s139215 remaining and
raid the creditors ten and three tenths
cents ON the dollar. The plaintiff
was paid this pro rata on $S69.75,
amounting to $S95S which was re-
mitted to Milwaukee by Curler and
King OF this latter sum is is appar-
ent that about eleven dollars was from
the item for forty-five half barrels e.
SOL 25 which had been included ann
that the dividend paid to plaintiff was
more than double what it ought 20
have been and that this occurred he
cause Shape had made out the bill for
mere than twice the amount shown 20
be due by the plaintiffs books. How
much the defendant would have paid
for the beer without the cooperage
does not appear If he offered to sell
the casks for 500 that may have been
i, al he considered them worth to him
at the time he bought them from the
: assignee. If it be considered that the
5 amount paid by the defendant to the
assignee, $4,000, which it is alleged
, IN the complaint to be the value OF
the kegs. and which defendant admits
while asking for judgment for that
. amount and Directing to one for their
p. return to him. was paid for the bar
rels, leaving less than $3.50 for the
beer they contained, then that sum
l. was distributed among all the credit
l. ors and the plaintiff received less than
! fifteenth of the amount in its diyt-
dend from the assignee. 1t does not
appear that the plaintiff or its officers
was informed or knew that any part
/ of the money it received came from its
# cooperage. or that Shape had consent
ed to a SALE Or attempted to waive the
plaintiffs right to the kegs. and &C.
9 cepting a part OF the OmOunt due On
t. it's claim against Ecker without such
v knowledge, did not stop plaintiff from
. claiming its property. If it had been
aware of all the facts from the begin
I ming and had waived its right as con.
# tended. it would have been a poor
y business transaction to donate more
. than fourteen fifteenths of it's cooper
:. age toward the payment of the other
creditorl which would be the result
. if the plaintiff could not recover, fo'
70 it never received anything from IT,
defendant directly or knowingly o.
from Ecker for the casks. The cour
sustained defendants objections to the
m following question in the deposition D
Henry Uihlein, president of the plain
tiff's company: when did you frs
0. learn that Mr.. Shape had collected 1
cooperage account with your beer &C
= count from Mr. Grimmon and are 20,
he now ready and willing to return hin
all money so collected for cOoperage?
Until the defendant introduced som,
a evidence tending to show that tn
is paintiff or its properly authorizes
agents had sold or waived the com
pany's right to the casks or knowingly
h. accepted a part of the proceeds iron
NC them, it was not necessary for tn
- plaintiff to show anything to the cor
trary for the burden of proving estof
-, pei was upon the defendant TIL
same was true regarding the check TO
OF $5O.63 rendered by counsel forth
plaintiff to the attorney for the d.
PENDANT, but the evidence in this cor
ID nectiOn was ruled out. A part Of tn
ed answers and letters in the deposition
in which we have considered in Orde
to give a more extended explanatio
be were not admitted or offered In ev
ne dence but this could not affect the r,
~, suit for they tend to prove q limit;
ton of Shapes powers and plainti
did not need to introduce them unit
after defendant had shown some al
gu thOrity in him to dispose of the COO
,m erage. On behalf of the defendar
en- is is claimed that the grounds for tn
exceptions taken by the plaintiff t
the action of the court in over ruin
h objections are not specified as requi
ed by the case Of McGurn V. McInn
e"- GA New The reason for an obje
lon ton should be called to the attentio
ga OF the court once but need not /
repeated. If objection be made to til
~. Introduction of deed because it
II not signed or acknowledged by tt
grantOr, or to a question upon tt
ground that it is hearsay and til
court Overrules the objection tt
counsel simply states Eve except" .
Note our exception it is sufficien
for the only fair implication in that
excerpts to the action Of the cou
in over ruling his objections on Il
grounds he has specified, and of whit
the court has already been mat
aware. The decision in McGurn
McInnis does not require more. b
an inference might be drawn from tt
syllabus in that case that the grOun,
OF the objection must be repeated :
II length in the exception, which wou
]. ito time, cucumber records al
il Nye no a.a useful purpose Il
Il specifications regarding the insu1
II cheney of the evidence is definite al
complete, and if it were the only o.
it would be necessary to send Il
case back to the District court. ii
A. 4h0x e. IL,