Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-03-26
SUPREME COURT SYLLGBl

or purely agricultural lands. not actually
connected with the village and not adapted
Is Ncb 6SS.
=. Such lands cannot he included within
the limits Of the proposed village Tor the
sole purpose Of obtaining a SUFFICIENT num-
Der Of actual kesdents necessary ~ in
corporate, without the consent Of the
owner and such owner can maintain pro-
cecdings 10y quo wHrranto to determine the
validity OF the order OF Incorporation.
state against Dimond, a Ncb, 1874
j. Evidence examined and ned TO show
less than the required number Of actual
residents within the village necessary to
! incorporate at the time the proceedings
FOR that purpose were had
lll64 Bankers Union OF the World
aagainst lands Appeal from Seward. AZ
l. Questions not raised by the pleadngs
IN the court OF original jurisdiction can
not be considered by the supreme court on
:. Where it would be proper for court
OF law 10 grant new trial II the applicd-
ton had been made while that court had
the power. it is equally proper for a court
of equity to do so. III the application is
made when the court OF law has no means
OF granting such a trial; but court Of
equity VIII only grant such relief In case
/ of newly discovered evidence. surprise or
/ fraud, or where a party is deprived of the
I means OF defense by circumstances be-
1 yopd his control Horn against Queen,
g. Where it is shown that the plaintiff
I has not used ordinary diligence i'm making
/ or attempting to mako his defense in the
| former action he will be denied new
| trial.
I 4. In such case the plaintiff must also
| plead and prove that he has valid de-
| Tense to the action In which the Judgment
complained of was rendered.
| .. Evidence examined and held sufficient
| to sustain the judgment OF the district
1897 Several Tracts Of Land CYeiser)
! against state. Error from Douglas. AZ
/ tirmed. Letton, J.
! In a tax suit under the scavenger act the
| action OF the district court in disregarding
/ a volunteer aud unauthorized appearance of
an attorney purportug TO answer Tor all
/ defendants in default and in rendering a
| default decree against such defendants
1855 EccIes against Walker. Appeal from
| Gage. Reversed and dismissed so far as
| judgment is sought against the company
! for the statutory penalty of 800. Dufhe, G.;
! /. The surety on the Official bond Of an
officer is not liable for the penalty Of $50
! imposed by section g. chapter xviii. of the
| Compiled Statutes, for eXacting fees in eN-
| cess of those prescribed by statute. EcCles
| v. L: $. Fidelity and Guaranty Co, 1Ol n.
! w, 1923. disapprovcd
! 2. An appellate court. on a second appeal
! or a court, will not ordinarily rc-eXamlne
| peal. but where the case was on the first
! appeal remanded generally for a now trial
! and the same questions are presented on
| the second trial, the appellate court is not
! bound TO follow opinions on questions Of
| law presented on the first appeal and may
| re-eXamine and reverse its rulings on such
! questions, and should do so when the opin-
| ion first expressed Is manifestly incorrect.
1881. state against Omaha Elevator Conn
pany. Original Motion and demurrers
| overruled. Ietton. j.
! !. All statutes upon the same general sub
| iect are to be regarded as part of one sys-
| TEN aud later statutes are to be considered
| as supplementary or Complementary to
those preceding them upon the same sub
| 1eCt,
>. statutes in pari matcrIa should be con-
| stTued together
| 9. Repeats by implication are not favored.
/ ~ In mas gf 4
| utes upon the same subject, the later cover
ing the entire matter embraced I'm the first
| and also additional provisions the later act
supersedes the first and repeats the first by
implication! But if the later statute does
not cover the entire field Of the first and
fails to embrace within its terms material
portion OF the first it will not repeal 50
much of the first as is not included within
its scope. but the two will be construed to-
gether so far as the first still stands.
4. Rule applied and held that the anti
srust act OF 1887, known as the Gondring
antitrust act OF 1906, known as the Junltin
act except as 70 the first section thereof
s. Unless II appears from its terms that
an act applying 10 a certain class of per-
! sons is meant to cover all inhbitions and
regulations affecting them, a later general
! act applying to all persons and prohibiting
| in general terms the acts specified in the
former act as well as a number of other
acts and purposes. defining new crimes and
prescribing now penalties, and giving new
civil remedies, will not be held to except
from the operation of the latter
s. Rule applied and held that the acts OF
1887 and 1897 prohibiting combinations by
/ grain dealers and others to fix the price OF
| grain, etc, do not except such dealers from
the operation Of the later general anti,
| trust acts of 1897 and 1905, applying to al
illegal combinations to fix prices etc.
T. Upon prosecution for contempt in the
district court, the Judge before whom the
cause is regularly to be heard may refuse
to transfer the cause to another judge OF
the same court for hearing, unless 1t !:
made to appear by due proof that fail
and impartial trial can not be had before
him. or that some other ground for change
of venue prescribed by statute exists.
s. A prosecution for constructive contemp
alleging the facts constituting the contempt
II such information is amended by inter
he reverihed and there must he a tria
thereon as upon a new prosecution.
6. In a prosecution for constructive con
tempt in the violation Of restraining or
der the affidavit or information must Sc
forth the acts, constituting the violation
The general allegation that the defendan
has disobeyed the restraining order is no
sufficient to give the court Jurisdiction.
I. A prosecution for contempt is lin th'
nature of a prosecution for crime an(
the affidavit or information must state thu
acts constituting the offense with as grea
certainty as Is required in criminal pro
ceedings. In the interval IL will be pre-
sumed necessary TO support the jurisdiction
of the court over such proceedings that tn,
order OF adjournment was vacated and thu
14479 State, ex rel. Cronln agains
Cronin. Appeal from Holt. Judgment de
nying writ affirmed order taxing cost
against relatOr reversed and cause re
manded with directions to tax costs of III,
proceeding to respondent. Albert. c. Di
vision No g
/. Section :, article o. chapter lxxvH. Com
piled Statutes (Secton 1O650, Cobbey's An
notated Statutes) provides for the publica
ton Of notice of the filing Of a petition II
the district court, under what is known "A
the 'scavenger act" and that the count!
commissioners shall designate the newspa
per in which said notice. and in which al
notices OF tax sales made by the count!
treasurer under said act, shall be pub
lished; provided, the county treasurer shal
designate such newspaper when the count,
commissioners fail to do So Among othe
proceedings OF the county board, its recOr
shows the following: ON motion the print
ing Of the scavenger delinquent taXlist wa
awarded to the O'Neill Frontier" Held
that such record is sufficient to show a dies
ignation by the county board az news
paper TO publish the notice required by SAT-
( section.
2. The writ Of mandamus Is properly dc
, MED where II would be unavailing II al
lowed.
1860. State. ex rel. Douglas County
against DrexeL Original. Write denie
/. The object of the court in cOnstruin
an act Of the Legislature Is to ascertai
the Intention Of the lawmakers. That In
tenuon when ascertained Will prevail owe
the literal sense Of the words used