Omaha daily bee., 1908-10-17

an official bond given by him and
is not stopped in such suit to assert the In
validity of such statute,
1873. Batten against Klamm. Appeal
from Lancaster. Reversed. Epperson, c.
Department No. J..
l. In the matter of granting a license for
the sale Of tn|toXicanting liquors., 1t Is the
duty OF the licensing board TO see to It
that the licensee is a mar of respectable
standing and character. 1t iSnot permitted
them to indulge the presumption. that an
applicant is of good standing and charac-
ter, when It is denied by remonstrance
2. Affidavits are incompetent to prove
that the petitions for a liquor license are
freeholders when that question is properly
pli9eeeeSd IN issue by remonstTanGs: 49,.
per. On rehearing, former opinion modified
and adhered to. Barnes, c. j.
/. A defendant when on trial charged
with the crime of selling Intoxicating
liquors without a license is presumed to
be innocent until such a time as the evil
dence establishes his guilt beyond a rea-
sonable doubt, and he is entitled to have
the jury so instructed.
?. A person charged with the keeping Of
Intoxicating liquors for the purpose of I'M
lawfully selling or disposing of the same,
where such liquor is found in his posses
sion, is not entitled to the presumption of
innocence which usually surround the de-
PENDANT in a criminal. prosecution, because
the statute makes such possession presump-
tive evidence Of a violation Of chapter 81
Of the annotated statutes of 1907, regulating
the license and sale OF intoxicating liquors
i'm this state.
3. The supreme court may reverse a judg-
ment or the district court, in a criminal
case, In a part and affirm 1t in part where
the legal part is severable from that which
is illegal.
4. Former judgment herein modified and
I57O9-iO-ii-l2-13. state ex rel Woods
against Rathsack. State ex rel Woods
against Rathsack. State Elk rel Woods
against Rathsack. State eX rel Woods
against Rathsack. Original peremptory
writ of mandamus allowed. Good, C.. Dept
l. Where a hearing has been had upon
an application for a license to sell intoxi-
eating liquors and a remonstrance thereto,
and the license issued, and an appeal has
been taken to the district court within a
should be recalled and revoked pending the
appeal in the district court, and man
damus will issue to compel the recall and
revocation of the license.
l4l76. in redisbarment Of William l..
Newly. Original. Dismissed. Letton, j.
In proceedings for disbarment the pre-
sumption OF innocence applies and the Gull
pability OF the respondent must be estab-
lished by a clear preponderance of the evil
1915. Butler against Libe Appeal from
Holt. On motion for rehearing motion
overruled. Per curtain.
1854. Backes against Schlick. Appeal from
Platte. Affirmed. Duffie, c. Division
No. /.
/. Where a contract IS executory, one
| party nus the regal right 10 blOp per-
Torrance on the other side by an explicit
direction to that effect, subJecting himself
to. such damage as will compensate the
other party for being stopped In the per-
formance OF his part at that stage in the
execution Of the contract, The party thus
forbidden to proceed cannot afterwards go
on, complete the contract and recover the
contract price as such; his only remedy
being for damages for breach OF contract.
2. Where the vendor in an eXecutory con-
tract for the sale of goods receives notice
from the Yendee that he Will not accept
delivery of the goods or pay for the same,
and the vendor, Notwithstanding such no.
tice, leaves the goods at the place of de-
livery named in the contract, and brings
suit against the vendes as for goods sold
action, either the purchase price OF goods,
or the damage sustained in consequence
3 A written stipulation OF facts or mode
of proof filed i'm a cause forms no part
OF the record, unless made so by a bin Of
A. In ths absence of a bill of exceptions,
II VIII be presumed that an issue or fact
from the evidence, and that such issue was
correctly determined.
1925. Currier against Teske. Appeal from
Madison. Affirmed. Good, c. Division
No. 1.
Where a valid real estate mortgage has
been foreclosed, even though the foreclosure
hproceedings were void, neither the mort.
gagor nor anyone claiming under him will
be permitted to assail the title acquired
through the foreclosure proceedings with,
bhN pay III " ANAAuNllAB ne amount OF Llt
decree and interest. Stull against Mast
lonka, "a Neb. 800. 14 N. w. 1888, followed.
1852. Ogden against Garrison. Appea.
from Harlan. Affirmed. EppersOn. C. Di'
vision No. /.
l. To secure a review Of an equity case
in this court, the filing Of a motion for q
new trial In the court below is not required
2. A purchaser Is chargeable with notice
OF a tenants rights when the latter is II
the actual possession OF the real estate al
the time IL Is sold.
g. TIL execution Of a new lease, in which
the tenant does not expressly reserve fix
lures or improvements erected by him
under a preceding lease. does not deprive
him OF tho right to remove them.
1921. cowpefThwait against Brown. APP
peal from Pawnee. Affirmed. Fawcett, c.
Division No. 2.
l. AN assignment In a motion for a new
trial that a group OF instructions Is enron
eOus Is bad II any one OF them was prop
erly given" City OF South Omaha against
2. An assignment Of error that "the yer.
dict Is contrary 10 law" raises the question
whether the verdict Is contrary TO the
law as contained In the charge given By
the court TO the jury, but nothing more,
Drexel against Daniels. % Neb,, 30.
g. A father who owns land upon whiet
Is situated a dwelling house which. will