Omaha daily bee., 1909-11-21
RULING ON LIQUOR PROBLEM
Supreme Court Hold Must be
Used by {.
Must be
NO TRANSFER OF BILL OF LADMG
south Omaha Taxpayers who Pro-
tested Against Action OF Council
on Special Assessments
Win Case.
nrnm a STAT correspondentl

u YIN u HA@AA
LINCOLN. Nov. N-(SpeciaL)-Should a
person secure a bill OF lading for a jug Of
whisky which the owner refused 70 a
out OF the station, then pay all the costs
and take the liquor and divide II between
three other parties, each contributing a
fourth Of the expense money, that person
IL guilty Of violating the liquor law, and
the transaction Is considered a sale Of
liquor without a license.
Thus has the supreme court decided In
the case Of Fred skiles OF Holdrege, who
did that very thing. He was convicted
in the lower court and the supreme court
yesterday affirmed the judgment of the
lower court.
New Trial for Henderson.
o William Henderson, convicted In Grant
county for criminal assault. will be given
another trial. The supreme court reversed
the Judgment Of the district court, holding
the evidence ala not justify the action
OF the lower court. The complaining Wit
ness was emma c.. Biles.
south OmahRns win.
John L. Calm and others who remon-
strated against the levying Of special as
sessments upon their real estate ia South
Omaha for the purpose Of defraying three
fifths OF the expense incurred In repavlng
n phIL VI Wtntg-AouIln Street udNt WpH
Their suit. The tax was assessed in 1906.
The remonstrance was not formally over
ruled by the city council, but was ignored.
The district court found that the owners
Of 60 per cent Of the foot frontage in the
paving district had demonstrated against
the requirement. OF the street and that the
city council was without jurlsd lctlon to
levy the assessments In suit. This judg.
ment is affirmed by the supreme court.
Lawsuit over Horse.
In the case OF H. Fred Miller against
the Burlington Railway company, APP
pealed by the railway company from Gus
ter county, the supreme court affirms the
Judgment Of the district court in favor Of
Miller for S1,3I5.bO damages for the loss
of a stallion shipped oyer the company's
lines from Cambria, Ia, TO Broken Bow,
Neb. When the horse vas shipped the
value OF the animal was fixed at 500.
upon which valuation the freight rate WAS
assessed. When the animal died in tran
SIT as a result Of fire the owner sued to
recover 81, 900 damages. The railroad COM
pany claihed that the damages could not
exceed the value upon which freight was
paid. The supreme court holds that such
u limitation is prohibited by the statute
of the state in which the shipment origi-
mated and the constitution of the state in
which delivery was to be made and Is
therefore void.
PRpilIiOn Times Wins.
In the case OF the PapilIion Times Print
ing company against sarpy county, the
Judgment Of the district court allowing
the claim of the newspaper for four publ
cations of the soavenger tax list at the legal
rates is affirmed by the supreme court.
nFIG. Il. a.. 80. a.. l. 4 T..l IIa-,I.r ~.
attorney for the newspaper, got to Lincoln
too late to make argument. The paper
won the case.
The folio wing opinions were handed
down by the supreme court:.
Miller against G.. b. a. q. II. Co. Az
johnson against Dahie. Affirmed. Rose,
il Faweett, j., dissenting
fhiele against Carey. Reversed and re-
Chan against city of South Omaha. AZ
o'Connor against Zimmerman Affirmed.
McKinnon against Holden. Affirmed
Berge against Eager. Affirmed. Let
TobIer against Union Stock Yards com
pany. Affirmed. Barnes, j.
The SUNNI Lumber company against
Tho Cornel-Yale company. Affirmed. Faw-
tapnlion Times Printing company
against Sarpy county. Affirmed. Reese,
Q. ].
Trousil against Bayer. Affirmed. Let
ton, ],
Bank of Alma against Hamilton. AZ
fitmed. Root, j.
State ex rel. Thompson against Majors.
Demurrer overruled. Writ Of quo war
ranto allowed. Barnes, j.; Rose, j., con-
curing separately. Reese, c. j.; con-
curing In part and dissenting I'm part,
Dean, j., dissenting.
Henderson against state. Reversed and
remanded. Root. j.; Lection, j., and Faw-
cett, j., concurring separately.
Following are rulings on motions for
rehearing:
Gross against Jones. Overruled.
Westlakr ,~~~trVt Murphv. OVerruled,