Omaha daily bee., 1909-03-21


sentied to by him and taken in shorthand
by n stenoErapher with tho understanding
that the statement was TO be typewritten
above a signature mad by the atfiant on
n blank sheet Of paper. Upon later som
sultation with associate counsel and a
statement to him OF the facts as they had
occurred, The associate not being present
at the time of the dictation, IL was thought
the affidavit did not sufficiently detail the
transaction. The associate counsel dictated
additional statements, and 10 which a fur
ther statement was added by defendant
which was probably true, but not known
so to be by the witness, together with the
statement that the Affidavit was made In
who were not present at the time Of the
dictatlon. The reformed affidavit was
given a notary with instructions to find
the parties and procure the signatures OF
the affidavit. The notary attached his
1urat and seal and handed the paper to
another with instructions TO find the pro-
posed affiant. but he was not found. The
affidavit afterwards appeared with tho
name OF the affiant erased where written
by him and placed at the end OF the ex-
tended instrument. The paper was or
igtnally intended for use ON the hearing OF
an application for an interlocutory order
by the district court In a cause then pend
ing. but was never So used. nor was any
attempt made to use IL. Charges were
presented against the defendant by which
he was accused Of an effort to deceive and
practice a fraud upon the court and OF
causing a false, forged and untruthful
affidavit to be made. Held, that in the
absence OF any attempt on the part OF de-
PENDANT or any other person to make use
OF such paper and, upon a consideration Of
all the evidence introduced upon the hear
ing of the disbarment proceedings, the con-
duct Of defendant. while not to be com
mended, was not such as to warrant q
Judgment Of disbarment or suspension from
practice.
2. Upon the hearing OF the disbarment
proceedings an attorney who was assoc
ciated with defendant In the principal suit
was called to the witness stand by the
prosecution and detailed facts within his
knowledge as to the conduct and statement
of defendant in their consultations con-
corning said affidavit and its use in, the
principal case, and also the conversations
and statements of their client upon the
same subject. Held, that the testimony
did not divulge any Communication which
were privileged by law,
1868. Second National bank of Monmouth
pssi fTom sfI1 sRsas1ep. T EHITm SSSmpRRn oSt, j. Ap-
l, Defendants board Of directors by reso-
luton authorized the execution OF the cor
poration's note to D., its president The
p%oration. name by the secretary alone and
delivered to D. The instrument did not
indicate that d was interested in or an
officer Of defendant. d. secured said note
by Misrepresentation and could not have
recovered thereon. The contents of de-
PENDANTS articles Of Incorporation were not
disclosed and but two sections OF its by
laws were introduced in evidence, and they
do not specifically authorize any officer
or officers of the corporation to execute
due course of trade for value and without
notice, other than the face of the instru-
said note in good faith from DIS endorsee.
Held that 1t was not void In plaintlfts
hands.
B. An endorsee of a negotiable instru,
ment, who takes 1t before maturity In part
payment Of a ~pTe-eXisting debt, and
credits it thereon, is a purchaser for value
N aaa fhs a TSon SOSgse g. Of NeS SHsiRssf bg7. Smith
D. The evidence IL u~ndisputed that plain
tiff purchased the note In suit in good
faith, in due course of trade, before its
maturity, for a valuable consideration and
without notice of any infirmities therein,
Held, that the court properly instructed
the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff.
sr lSS0'' T Johannes sos against fEgnsg' AAP pPe2.
son, G. Commissioners division.
l. Section 5514, annotated statutes, 1907, in
30 far as 1t assumes to authorize an ap.
peal from the decision of the county board
upon the questions of public utility tg void
1854 Rasmussen against Blust. Appeal
from Dawes, Affirmed. Duffie, c. Com
missioners' division.
i. One, who has not acquired a right-of.
way for an irrigation canal over the public
lands of the United States prior to theii
entry as d homestead, must arrange fol
such right-of-way. with the entryman OF
take proper proceedings to appropriate the
land for that purpose.
2. The construction of an irrigation canal
through the public lands of the United
States without first securing the consent OF
the general government, or taking a right
of-way deed from a homestead entryman
who afterward abandons the land and al
lows 1t to revert to the general govern
ment, gives the proprietor OF the canal no
claim to the land over which 1t runs as
against ~ subsequent entryman.
1879. Caution against Pope. Appeal, Mer-
rick. Affirmed. Calkins, G. Commissioner