Omaha daily bee., 1909-08-03

I TVTTTTWT OF ut WWWTTV WTEWWUNa anu VWWTTV
ground within the city does not authorize
them to enact ordinances for the leasing Of
space on the streets or sidewalks in front
OF business houses for use by produce
dealers or other merchants, such use Of
the streets and sidwalks being unla wful
and constituting a nuisance per Sc.
? Whatever space in a public street Of
a city is set apart for the use OF the public
as a sidewalk, the public have n right to
authorized Instructions, and It Is the duty
Of the mayor and city council TO see that
II is kept in that condition.
3. 1t is no defense TO a party. who Is
being proceeded against by a city for un-
lawfully obstruCting a sidewalk that others
are obstructing the walks In like manner.
T. Nor is the city estopped by reason Of
its past failure to enforce its ordinances
against the obstruction Of sidewalks from
subsequently removing all distractions
therefrom.
l57lL Ross against Craven. Appeal,
Holt. Affirmed. Root, J.
J. The contract OF an agent In, me name
OF his principal for the sale OF lands in
Nebraska, is void under the statute Of
frauds, unless the formers authority Is In
writing.
. a letter written by a land owner to a
real estate broker stating the terms upon
which the former is willing to sell his
land, does not Clothe the latter with au-
thority to execute a contract in the form
er's name for the sale OF such real estate.
8 An acceptance OF a written offer TO
sell land must conform strictly to the
terms OF such offer to create a contract.
T. II plaintiffs case Is based upon a
contract, which he claims was executed
by defendants authorized agent for the
sale of real estate in Nebraska, and the
answer is a general denial of all allega-
tons to said land, defendant Is entitled to
the protection Of the statute Of frauds,
l5iA6. Bloomfield against tlnn. Appeal
Kearrey. Affirmed. Barnes, J.
l. After instructinB the jury as 10 the
Issue presented for their determination,
IL is not error for the court to refer them
to the pleadings for a more specific state
ment. and allow them TO AXE me pleadinss
when tney retire to consider their verdict
Z. The court In paragraph two OF MS
Instructions tUld the jury what the PLAIN
J tttf was required TO prove IN order 20
recover. Ana IN another paragraph In
formed them what would be a complete
defense to the matters mentioned I'm the
tOTmtT paragraph. Gtvlu, that TINS did uoi
render lne paragraphs inconsistent Win
} esCn other ana tuat When considered TO-
getner tney properly stated the law APP
pnCaDie TO the Facts of the case.
5. An instruction not technically cor
0 rect, put. which is more favoraple to tne
complaining party tuan " ms opponent,
atGoius NM 40 ground OF reversal,
5 L. IN an aCuou GOr slanuCr II rs proper
for the planu1r to introduce evidence Of
the speaking OF slanueruus Worus Other
IMAM nose set out IN The petl,.On, but Of
% sImIIar import, both before ana after the
cUnunenceuIrnt OF the SUIT wnen malice -
[ a TACT In issue ana to snow the extent OF
r the publcatIon Dut not In aggraNauon OF
. damages.
; q. An instruction by which the jury were
. tod lnat Iney nIgnI consider sucn state
ments lor tne purpose of showing maItoe,
s or III hssiaEanoh OF udLhases, h no.
-
C parent lIUm me Whole record, including
ths amount OF the reGoVery, thst the ,Jut.
ID We're not lmIiuenceU by me use OF the
wOrds or IN assraNatiou oil damages IA
airNIng al their verdICI, the giving OF
. sucn All instruction IL error Without pTeJu-
= ulce.
.. 1t is proper in such a case for the
COurt to Instruct the jury that in IiNInS
the amount OF manages they may take int
CONSIDERATION luC present ana future In
i jury to the plaintiff.
q e. Nnere a parry mas requested the sub
mission Uf sp-uIdI qutsuons 10 the jury
Y to be nsweTed uy them, and the answer
% returned are sustained by the evidence,
ne cannot De heard 10 complain OF sum
). He'd upon the facts disclosed by the
record, ina. the verurct m THIS case Is
not excessive.
lJ66. Catron against Daley. Appeal,
harIan. AfIlrmeu, Lection, J.
3 l. A majority IN interest OF the owners
resident IN TINS state OF any contiguous
DOdy OF swamp or overlooked lands In one
or more counties in this state may sign
articles OF association tor the formation OF
a drainage district under section 556bl,
annotated statutes, 1907.
Z. Ihe words resident owners" as used
in said section held to mean owners resi-
dent Of this state
I. The district court may refuse to order
the formation OF such a district II none OF
the petitions for the district reside within
:: the county or counties in which the pre-
posed district lies.
% 1888. Moor against KecE. Appeal,
Saunders. Affirmed. Dean, j.
lbl6S. In re application Of Sullivan. VII
denied. Letton, j.; Fawcett j., not sitting.
l. In this state the receiving or buying
owner, Is not an accessory, but a substan.
p tive offense, and a conviction may be had
without regard to the person who stole
the goods. OF from whom they. were re-
70 ceiyed.' Levi against State, IL Neb. l.
?. The charge Of buying stolen horses
: in this state, knowing the same to have
!, been stolen, with Intent by such buying to
defraud the owner, states an onense, even
though the charge further reeltes that the
1900 maze ole In GANN IaLANa
107O0. Douglas County against KountEe
Appeal from Douglas. Affirmed. Root
j.; Letton J. Concurring separately;
L. II this court pssumes Jurisdiction or
an appeal for an order appointing an ap'
~ praiser to ascertain the amount OF an In
y heritance tax alleged by the authorities "a
be due, II will go no further than to ascer.
tain whether there was any property sub
iect TO such appraisement
.. The beneficiaries In a voluntary deed
Of settlement made BY a resident OF th'
state. who was domiolled therein AZ thu
r. time OF his death, which provided that q
~ foreign trustee should hold certain stock
~ OF a Nebraska corporation, yielding tn
n profits therefrOm to the settler during hi
-. life, and upon his death to transfer sale
o. stocks to the first named beneficiaries, ar
nd subject TO the payment OF an inheritance
NJ, tax upon the transfer OF said stocks L
!, them. and the trustee Is also personally
s, O. The aforesaid settler provided In SALE
deed that his trustee should, upon tn
q death Of the settler, transfer 10 two nance
ne trustees certain stocks, In trust for a bene
ficiary. but that II the settler in HE las
Will and testament should device Othel
property on trusts for the benefit OF SAT-
'c, beneficiary, then the trustees named In tn
/ deed OF trust. should hold said stocks o
3 the terms named In the will for the bene
Id, ut OF the beneficiary. Held. that althoug
the trustee IN the deed OF trust reside,
IN New York and had manual possession
20, OF said stocks. at the time the settler died
"A, yet II the settler did make a provision II
"a his will az aforesaid that the benificiar
2. I'm the deed OF trust mast trace her sue
. . .NIranH1h. EnNA MILL md thu n ia
subject to pay an inheritance tax for which
ar the trustee vas also liable.
D.
pA Roosevelt at scotch Church.
NAIROBI, British Fast Africa, Aug ?
lc. Theodore Roosevelt yesterday attended N
Scotch Church of NaIrobi and made