Omaha daily bee., 1909-01-20
Lincoln Office Omaha Bee
5l8 Little Building
Auto Phone 74l7, Bell A-2S9S
6. N. Porter, Manager.

Traction company the right to build on
any streets within the city save those
on which II already had a franchise from
the city council. This, the plaintiff as
serts, gave the Citizens company the op-
portunity to enter into successful COMPETE
ton with the rival company, and that the
value gained by the new corporation in the
decision was worth $4,000. His claim for
services rendered as its attorney through
all these proceedings is $1,000, no part of
which he says has been paid.
state school work.
State Superintendent Bishop in reor-
g~anizing the work of his office has had
in mind the most economical use Of the
funds at his and at the same time
the greatest possible efficiency. He has
combined the inspection and examining
boards with the office force in such a way
that the chairman Of these boards is an
outside educator. Superintendent e. ]. Bod
well of Beatrice has been appointed chair
man of these boards. Today he has further
combined the force by arranging for a
large share Of the inspection Of normal
training in high schools to be done by his
deputy and others employed in his office,
placing all this work under a general direc-
tor Of normal training.
Prof. e. L. Rouse, head of professional
training at Peru, has accepted this director
ship under the state superintendent Neither
Superintendent Bodwell nor Prof. Rouse
are taken from their present positions.
Their travelling expenses are paid when on
duty for the state departments. Prof.
Rouse's appointment gives complete salts
faction. lie has been a state authority on
questions OF normal training for some time.
His advice will have weight with the high
schools offering normal training and his
direction will be based on sound pedagogical
principles.
supreme Court Call.
In the supreme court OF the state OF Ne
braska today the following cases were as
signed for oral argument before the court:
15469, State ex rel. Dobney against Chi
C6Ko & Northwestern Railway Company;
l5472, state ex rel. L.uben against Chicago
& Railway Company: 1895,
Hart against Chicago & Northwestern Rail
preme Castle of Highland Mobiles; 154S1. Kill
len against Funk; 1888, Hruby against Sow
ord Hardware Company against j. L. Case
Threshing Machine SCompany; 1549S, Mum
son against Thompson; l5497 Bonacum
against Manning; 1894, Robbins against
Finn; 1865, Gutru against McNicker; 1866,
Whitcomb against Chase; 1888, Smith
against Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail
way Company.
The following cases were assigned for
oral argument before the commission:
1886, Reed against Village of Syracuse
1886, Kerr against McCreary; 1887, Carter
against Bankers Life Insurance Company;
l546S, NanBuren against Village of Elm
wood; 1471, Griffin against Chriswisser;
1919, Mccullough against Dunn; 15471. Eau
Der against Keim; 1914, Adams against
Fisher: 15475, Smith against Carnahan; 1547s,
West AGAINST West; 1886, Classy against
Dye; 154s9, Fink against Busch.
The following cases were marked for SUBJ
mission on briefs:
1854. Duval against Advance Thresher
Company; 1882, Taylor against Austin
ll541S, State ex rel. Minden Edison Electric
Light and Power Company against City OF
Minden; 1886, Shannon against Bartholo-
NEW, 1891, Singer Sewing Machine Com
pany against Omaha Umbrella Manufac-
turing Company; 1892, Remington Type
writer Company against Simpson.
The following was marked for continu,
ance:
1916, Suffer against Chicago, Rock Island
x Pacific Railway Company.