Omaha daily bee., 1909-01-31
Supreme Court Syllabi

1880. Cohoe against State. Rrror from
Nemaha county. Affirmed. Barnes. c. J.
/. Where 1t is doubtful whether an al
legged offense Is larceny, or conversion by
a bailee with intent to steal, the intorma-
ton may contain two counts, one charging
the felonious aking the other the felontous
conversion, and the state will not be re-
rely for a conviction.
q In a prosecution for larceny OF money,
by a bailee. where the transaction consti-
tuting the offense extends through differ
snt counties, the venue may be laid and
the prosecution had in the county where
the bailment arose, and where the defend
ant has to account for and pay over the
money on demand to the one entitled to its
possession.
g. A voluntary confession of a defendant
is competent evidence In a criminal case
and may, with even slight corroborating
circumstances. be sufficient TO establish
the corpus deficit.
larceny of money by a bailee, evidence that
the accused obtained other sums of money
in like manner, and about the same time,
and the disposition he made Of such money
may be received as tending to show his
guilty knowledge and intent.
s. Evidence examined, It's substance
stated In the opinion and held, sufficient to
sustain the verdict.
1924. Woods against Hegner. Appeal
from Colfax county. Reversed and re-
lHdiutu WIN uCNiOho. hpptloOhs -
i, When the alleged respectable charac-
ter and standing of an applicant for a
LIQUOR license is denied II is the duty OF
the licensing BOARD TO consider the ignoble
acts or crimes which the evidence attributes
TO the applicant, and from these indices
TO his character determine whether he Is a
proper person to receive a license.
2, When it is proven by uncontradicted
evidence that an applicant for a license,
during the preceding year, permitted petit
gambling in a place OF business in his con-
troll and even on one occasion exhibited eN-
tremely lascivious pictures, II Is the duty
OF the licensing board to reject his petit
ton.
1926. Woods against Garvey county. APP.
peal from Colfax county. Reversed and
remanded with instructions. Bpperson, C.
Division No. l.
/, one who is frequently under the in-
fluence of intoxicating liquors, and who
6 6IIrE the HI, Pre G,sna year ST. permitted I gam a
man of respectable character and standing,
within the meaning of section 715O, An
notated statutes, 1907. and therefore not
entitled to a license permitting him to sell
intoxicating liquors.
1919. Heldermann against Noxon. Appeal
from, Cass. Affirmed. Duffie, c. Division
No. /. That a warrant issued for the ar
rest of the putative father of a bastard
constable of the county is not a cause for
abating the action In the district court.
where the question was not raised before
Wv
e The examining magistrate does not
lose jurisdiction of the case by granting q
continuance Of the hearing on the request
of the defendant
8. This court will not disturb a judg-
ment based on conflicting evidence where
the evidence sufficiently supports the Judg-
ment.
1924. Meyer against English. Appeal
from Lancaster. Affirmed. Rose. ]. Dean,
In a suit for damages to crops injured
at different times by trespassing animals
defendant may plead and prove q partial
defense extending to damages resulting
from plaintiffs negligence and breach of
contract to repair fences. and plaintiff may
recover other damages for which defendant
Is liable where the evidence contains proper
data for admeasurement thereof,
Appeal from Richardson. Affirmed. Barnes,
j. Dean, j., not sitting.
l. Where a party fails to test the suffl-
wise and proceeds to trial on the merits
on the theory that II tenders a certain
Issue. WHICH !. litisated and submitted to
strued to raise such issue It will be held
q Answer examined, it's substance stated
In the opinion and held sufficient 10 sustain
the verdict and Judgment.
g. Indefiniteness Is not a ground for the
reversal of a judgement. II It is too In
definite to be enforced the party complain
sired to make it more definite ana certain
application should be made for that pur.
pose to the court where II was rendered.
1642s. Estate of Keegan against WEIGH
Appeal from Otoe. Affirmed. Fawcett. J
l.. Under section 6045, Annotated Statute,
1897, whenever IT is made to appear to thc
probate court that for any REASONABLE,
cause the interests OF an estate pending ir
said court demand action by someone au
tiers testamentary or of administration car
be issued, 1t is the duty of such court t
appoint a special administrator to act II
collecting and taking charge OF the estat,
until an executor or administrator hal
been appointed.
2. And in such a. case said court may ap
without notice TO the heirs or devisees o
1897. Chicago House wrecking Compan,
against City OF Omaha. Appeal from Doug
las, Affirmed. Duffie, C.
The deputy tax commissioner of tn
city OF Omaha omitted to assess the plain
tiffs property in the year 1899 for the tai
levy of 1900. During the sitting OF tn,
Board OF Review in December, 1899, thi
omission was discovered and the bosr'
passed an order placing the omitted prop
erty on the assessment roll at a valuatio
OF $4,000; t%hereupon the tax commissions
notified the plaintiff Of the action of tn
Board OF Review. stating in said notic
that II the plaintiff did not appear an,
show cause why the assessment should no
by the board. Held. that while the boar,
} of Review had no authority to assess tn
plaintiffs property, the notice served upol
the plaintiff by the tax commissioners indi
Gated his intention to adopt the valuation
made by the board unless a shown.
against such assessment should be mad
and that his return OF the assessment roI
to the Board OF Equalization on the thiry
Monday OF December, with the plaintiff
property included therein at a valuation o
SO. ZOO was sufficient proof that the Ia
commissioner had adopted as his own tn
attempted assessment made by the board
and that such assessment while irregula
was not void,
154s1. Harms against Estate OF Pank
Affirmed. Appeal from Otoe. Letton, !
Dean. j., not sitting.
/. Specific performance of a contract be
|. tween the sole legatee and devisee In
! will who was an aged woman. and he
! children the heirs OF her deceased husband
: by the terms of which the larger porto
OF the property left TO the widow Is 10 b
{ surrendered by her and distributed anon
, the children upon the consideration ths
y certain objections TO the probate OF the wi
filed by some OF the heirs will be dismissed
will not be enforced, unless the proof this
such a contract was entered into is cles
and satisfactory.
j 2. In such a case. the transaction wi
be closely scrutinized and the contra'
J. must be clearly proved. No presumption
will be INDUCED In it's favor.
. lb433. Vandewoge against Peters. Apes
5000 nA