Omaha daily bee., 1909-03-21

ments OF the general organisation. through
its governing authority, so far as they re
late exclusively to church affairs and
church government, are binding on the
local associations, n their members and
officers. and courts will not ordinarily re-
view such final orders and judgments for
the purpose OF determining their regularity.
usages OF the general organization.
1855. WRlly VS.. Union Pacific Railway
Company. Appeal from Douglas Affirmed.
Fawcett, j..
/. instructions examined and held TO have
properly submitted the issues In contfo-
versy to the jury.
2. Evidence examined and held sufficient
to sustain the verdict Of the jury and
judgment OF the court,
1874. Souchek against Karr. Appeal,
Seward. Affirmed. Root, III Fawcett' j.,
dissenting.
bill Of exceptions Of the evidence submitted
during a former trial OF the case. GER
rectly reproduced the testimony of the wit
nesses, 1t also appeared that some of those
witnesses were nonresidents of and absent
from the county during the succeeding trial,
and that plaintiff had been unable to Sc
cure their dispositions or presence. Held
that 1t was not error to permit the testi-
mony of such a sent witnesses to be read
from the bill of exceptions to the jury.
D. The trial court in response to an OBJ
lection to a question ~propounded to a wit
ness stated that while he was satisfied upon
principle that the witness was not suffi-
GENTLY Informed upon the subject to tes-
tify thereto, yet In Difference to a possible
construction of the opinion Of this court
upon a former appeal he would overrule
the objection. Held, that as the point upon
which the witness was then Intercepted
was established without dispute by wit
nesses for both plaintiff and defendant, the
remarks of the court were not prejudicially
erroneous and did not have n tendency 10
destroy the credibility OF the witness con
corning her other testimony.
3. 1t Is not error 20 refuse to give an In
struction that singles out a witness and
Informs the jury that she is competent TO
testify upon a given subject.
a. IL a case has been tried three times,
the verdict each time being in favor of
plaintiff, this court will not set aside the
last verdict as being against the weight
Of the evidence, unless the evidence is
clearly Insufficient to support the verdict.
1eO61. In re-application of ElmerTC. Ham
1908. In re-application OF Byron G.. But
ton. Original. Writ denied. Lection. J.
not apply to the taking Of dispositions be-
fore justices of the peace, but section $50,
ct seq controls in such matters.
justices OF the peace committing a recusant
witness cannot be reviewed upon habeas
corpus. 1t Is only when the proceedings
value.
3. The language or the constitution Is to
interpreted with reference to the estab-
lished laws, ,usages and customs of. the
country at the time of its adoption and
the course OF ordinary and long settled
proceedings according to law
L. Statutes authorizing Justices OF the
peace to take dispositions and to punish
persons who disobey subpoenas or refuse
to answer proper questions are within the
constitution, providing that Justices Of the
peace shall have an exercise, such jurisdic-
ton as may be provided by law"
8. A refusal to answer such improper
questions as would constitute abuses OF
process Is not a contempt and may not be
punished. but a witness is entitled to his
privileges and immunities as well when q
deposition is taken as when examined In
1904. Emerson against State. Error from
Sheridan. Reversed and remanded. Dean,
j..
stealing property in 8 county over the
value Of 800. Upon the theory of the state
that said property was feloniously OBJ
tanned by the accused in G county and
there sold by the defendant, the court
gave the following instruction: "Knstruc-
ton No. L. Should you believe from the
evidence that the mules described in the
information were wont to run upon a
range or in a pasture in Cherry county.
Nebraska, and II you further believe from
all the facts and circumstances in evidence
that the said mules were taken from the
range in said Cherry county, and II you
further believe from the veidence that said
mules were brought into Sheridan county
by the defendant, and sold by him in
Sheridan county. then the crime charged
in the information would be complete in
Sheridan county" Held. prejudicial to the
| rights Of the accused and erroneous.
15lOs. In re disbarment of John c.. Wat
son. watson against Hayward. Appeal
from otoe. Reversed and dismissed,
Reese, c. ].
1. The defendant, an attorney, dictated
a form Of affidavit In the presence and
hearing of the witness and which was as