Omaha daily bee., 1908-07-18
Supreme Court Syllabi

rendered. ana the correctness OF the courts
findings upon the evidence adduced on the
trial. the Judgment viii be Affirmed, un-
less the bill 81 exceptions Is certified by
the clerk Of the district court ss being
either the original or a copy OF the one
allowed and ordered made a part OF the
record of the case.
1929. Olmsted against Noll. Appeal from
Saline. Affirmed. Calkins. Division No
I. IL Is the settled law OF this state that
erior cannot be predicated upon the over
ruling OF a challenge to a Juror Tor Sause
when the record does not disclose that me
Somp,S,ping Ps5I iy, mas exhausted !" ms
q Where the court directs a verdict In
favor Of one defendant and snomits me
ants, and the jury returns two verdiets,
one for the defendant in whose favor the
against the other attendants such verdicts
will be considered as one where no obiee.
ton is made to their form at the time OF
their rendition nor until atter tHe ulA-
8. Where a verdict is lereered in favor
Of one DEFENDANT and AGAINST the others,
mention the defendant in whose tavcr Ine
verdict finds, such error does not pre1udice
reversing a Judgment as to them.
T. Where there has been no ouer 81
proof Of the facts sought to be ELECTED by
a question excluded, he ruling OF Ihe
court in sustaining the objection Is not
properly presented for rcNteW.
"A oarty cannot predicate error in the
giving of an instruction tpcn the ground
that the same is not sufficiently explicit
unless he has first called the attention OF
the court to such defect and the court mas
refused to correct the same.
6. In an action brought by a wire against
LIQUOR dealers for loss OF support, a,tnougn
Of such support, n verdict VIII not DC SCI
aside unless the amount Is so Iatgs as &C.
clearly indicate passion or prejudice IN
the minds of the jury.
1880. sabin against Cameron. Appeal
from Lancaster. Reversed and remanded
Good, c. Division No. l.
l. The record Of a mechanics Hen Is no.
competent evidence ey-ner OF the time when
the material and labor therein mentioned
were furnished, or that such labor and
material were furnished and used upon the
building therein described,
Q. 1t Is reversible error to instruct n,
fury upon a question not raised by the
pleadings nor applicable to the evidence
when such instructions have a tendency C
mislead the Jury or have a prejudicial e.
feet upon the party complaining.
1894. O'Connor against Padget. Appea
Cunning. Affirmed. Epperson, c. Divisio'
No. l.
evidence may be cured by an instruction
which directs the jury to consider as al
established fact the transaction sought I
be impeached by the incompetent evidence
, 2. A communication made to. an attorne.
at law, where the relationship OF attor
: ney and client does not exist, Is not priv
J ileged, although the attorney was employe
in some other capacity.
3 3. The fact that a witness has ~testifie
to a conversation with q party, IN WnlC
: the latter made admissions against inter
: est, will not permit the party to testif
, to statements made by him In anothe
! conversation consistent with his theory G
7 4. Generally a party cannot complain G
. the courts nondirection of the jury, unles
1856. Nebraska Telephone Compan
n against the City of Lincoln. Appeal, Lar
caster. Affirmed. Letton, j. .
> /. The franchise or right to occupy tn
I streets of a city by a teleohone compan
/ Is not identical with the business or occt
patton of the company.
2. Ar occupation tax measured by a PEI
q centage Of the gross earnings OF a tel'
i phone company whose fFsnehise is ns az,
g erty according to its value as n gong col
Germ, does not tax the same property TWO
3. The provision for an annual paymel
- of $500 to the city of Lincoln In the r
spective franchise ordinances Of W tel
10 phone companies Gin consideration or II
exacted by the city for the privilege
using the streets under Its proprietorsh
g of the streets and while termed a "privilel
Id tax is in the nature of a rental char
Iii or compensation for the use OF the stree
4. The e%naction of e percentage OF y
gross earnings of It's business IN the orc
Union Independent Telephone company
n an exercise of the taxing power OF I
i'd city and is a tax upon the business or 9
ds cupation of conducting a telephone bui
NJ ness within the city.
be 5. Such provision is also legislative
he its character and subject to repeal.
of 6. : provision in an ordinance imposi
~ an occupation tax that the sum a
Is amount Of the occupation tax or taxes
the gross receipts required to be pa
"a, under existing ordinances may be c
Quoted from the amount of the tax, Is r
n void because not uniform as to perso
a or property, since by its operation all p'
a sons engaged in the same occupation Q
nd taxed upon the same basis and in the SAL
FL manner.
ay T. Under it's charter the city Of Linct
may lawfully enact an ordinance imposi
m upon telephone companies a business
on occupation tax measured by the gross
ceipts within the city and the tact u
MT tolls and rentals collected within the c