Omaha daily bee., 1908-12-28
Supreme Court syllabi

1sW4 Hastings Brewing Company against
Bohrer Appeal frem Adams Affirmed.
l. The mayor, in cities Of the second
class having mone than Seo and less
cast a deciding vote IL n contest over an
application for a liquor license, in case of
a tie. vote Of the council.
2..Chapter 1xxxii OF the laws Of 1907, which
prehtbtts corporations from being inter-
asltn in any manner in the retail traffic OF
with tho "s1ocumb'' law.
2 All statutes in pari materia must be
formed IN the minds Of the enacting body
parts Of a connected whole, though con-
sidered at different dates.
Of a statute by the officers charged by
law with its enforcement, is entitled to
considerable weight In interpreting that
A corporation may lawfully receive a
icente TO vend at wholesale intoxicating
LIQUORS in Nebraska, but no such authority
exists for licensing "A corporation to en-
eage in the retail traffic In such liquors.
l5t5L Green against State. Error from
Lancaster county. Reversed and defendant
discharged. Calkins, {. Rose, j., not sit
ting. Division No. .
l. Section 3 of the act OF March 30. 1901.
contravenes section 10 article Ill of the con-
s%tftution OF the state OF Nebraska, which
forbids special legislation, as we'll as sec
ton l Of the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution of the United States, which
forbids a state TO deny to any person
~ lNE IuIlEulNAAOn NIt t0udl nEoNtGLlOn
Of the laws, in that the acts thereby pro-
hiblted are made criminal only when com
mltted against citizens or residents of the
2 The rule that a court will not listen
to an objection made to the constitution
atty OF the law by a party whose rights
II does not affect. is inapplicabie to a case
where the vice OF the law consists in an un-
warranted discrimination between the tn
dividuals. against whom the aggression
thereby forbidden is committed.
1886. Garvreau against Van Patten. APP
peal from Adams county. Affirmed. Jaw
L The provision in section 156, chapter XVI.
compiled statutes, 1907, that n elector
which II may afterwards be Unidentified as
the one voted by him." and the instruction
given in schedule b, section 1853, OF said
chapter, "Do not make any mark on the
ballot save as above directed are directory
only.
q Where an ~elector, who has already
regularly and In due form voted for can
didates for all of the offices designated on
the official ballot. attempts to vote for a
such official ballot, by writing on another
part OF his ballot the name Of such person
and the office fiE y which Ss1o he sa desires SSu hi mot 10 avoid i61j
the ballot as to the candidates for whom
he properly voted for such designated OF
OF the ballot, aided by evidence aliunde, II
offered, that such marking was done Tor
the purpose Of distinguishing the ballot or
might be reasonably thought so to DO In
i5s2s. Woods against varley. Appealed
from Colfax. Reversed and remanded with
instructions. Epperson, c.. Division No. l.
/. A movable screen maintained IN the
front of a saloon sufficient to obstruct q
window, is a violation OF the screen law
Section T79, Annotated statutes, lSU.
1891. Bolton against Becker, Appeaiee
from Colfax. Reversed and remanded wltn
instructionE. Epperson, C.. Division No. /
l. Under the provisions of section ~ oil
the Slocumb law It Is a Ior :
, licensed vendor of intoxicating liquors tc
3 obstruct either his doors or windows by
I the use OF screens. blinds, paint, or otnei
, articles; and one who. during the previous
: year, has been guilty OF a Ylolauon OIL SAT-
{ section is not a proper person to receive
|, a liquor license. ~
, 1887. Woods against Krivohlavek. Appeaiet
= from Clofax. Reversed and remanded witt
Instructions. Epperson, c. Division NO. l
/. A screen maintained In front or Z
saloon sufficient to obstruct a view OF IN
interior through the door or window ID
= violation OF section 20, Slocumb law.
. 1883. Powell against Morrill, Appea
from Merrick: Reyerssd with direet0nS
" / Under section rs, chapter xxx, Com
: piled Statutes. the freeholderS required a.
Intoxicating liquors must be bona tide free
holders, and not such as Were maae Me- uiS
2 holders merely for the purpose OIL ehaohhs
2. The wife of an applicant Tor a hQuol
license. even though she may De a Ire
| the uhUeO meaning Of the liquor law.
a Where n witness on his direct eXamin
alton testified that an applicant I0a
character and standing In the community
II is competent to inteTrogate said witness
acts OF the applicant, as that he has VIC
ID lated the excise law, or comnltteo al!
n other act, in violation OF law. or rePusnah
10 the moral sense Of the community.
l. A formal offer to prove IS not neces
sary to obtain a review. OF the ruling 0
the excise board in excluding an answe
- IN q DrOner question D~rOUOunQeQ on III
3 INSTRUMENTATION Of a witness.
X 8. A formal offer to prove is not neces
sary to OBTAIN a review Of the ruling Q
the excise board in excluding an answer I
lie a proper question p~ropounded on the cross
- 1885,. Cerny against Paxton s. Gallaghe
. company. Appeal from douglas county
lie Affirmed. Calkins, z. DIVISION NO, La
for errors occurring at the trial, no part G
&c such verdict can be left to stand put
IN new trial must be awarded upon all Tn
&c IA Where a party voluntarily t~estifies !
40 open court to conversation between hlmse
nd and his attorney, he valves the right !
he have such communicau rs eonsloeTeu :
- privi esed, and he attorney b c mes =
conipetent witness to .es...s e9hcerhAhs VI
3. Where a creditor seeking to recovt
:. the payment Of a debt from a partnershll
" asks one partner 10 consult w ,b m mar
o. ner with whom he talks his agent ana
such partner voluntarily makes Ialse stat'
- mAntS TO MS COpdIIhNAB ~ -
nd bound thereby, nor estopped 10 uehy u
IL same. o,A a
TO legged to have been practiced by a promll
1T made with the secret intention OF not Pc
nd forming the same, an instruction that y
~ plaintiff must establish not ohy that u
PROMISE was made, but that the same W.
OF made deceitfully with intention TO oeirau
a. n%iaintiff. does not impose too great a Du
den OF proof upon the plainu1t Wnsn u
Jury are at the same time tolo that
e. order that the promise shall be deceitLui
made ii must appear at the time OF MA
ing such promise that the defendant hao l
en- Intention OF complying with the same
f Where the mortgage OF a stoch
~ goods sold the same in bulk, and the moi
2seor brings an action against such MOI
Sasee 10 recover the difference between u
STjce at which the goods sold ana tne
n market value, on the ground mat tns ntiTnl
" aagee obtained the mortgage by tEauuuIe
Sromises which he did not Intend 70 H.
to form. Id is not error to INSTRUCT tnS ~,
mon the measure of damages that IN
sbo,,id consider the value OF the stock
soI6 IN bulk and not the price AZ VIM
re ~ might be sold at retail. -,
10 1855. Fitch against Martin APP.e
douglas. reversed and remanded; tToo'.
lst Z n a claimant, in support OF ms =
coupt against the estate OF a deceased ~
80 testifies concerning independenl &c