Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-05-01
m THE SUPREME COURT

John Bruegger as trustee of the Brug'
ger Mercantile Co., plaintiff and ap'
pellant, VS.. Joseph Cartier, defend.
ant and respondent.
|. Section 1899. r. c.. 1905. provid.
inig upon the trial of any question or
issue of fact by the court it's decision
thereon and conclusions of law upon
such decision, and direction for en-
such conclusions. must be given in
writing and filed with the clerk
within sixty days after the cause has
been submitted for decision, does not
make void a Judgment rendered after
the expiration of that period.
2. After an action in Williams
county was tried, and before it was
decided, the county was. by Chapter
116. laws of 1903. detached from the
Second judicial district, and with 9th
er counties, formed into the Eighth
judicial district, filed thereafter. was
at most voidable and the party COM
planning of such Judgment, not hav-
ing made an application to vacate the
same as provided by section $685. r.
C. 1905, the judgment is valid.
3. In an action in eqity to obtain
new trial of an action at law or to
be relieved from Judgment entered
in such action on the ground that the
party complaining has been depriv-
ed of the right to have his case re-
viewed in the supreme court, it must
O hot in, ho &~;o
tiers were determined adversely to
the party complaining. to the preju-
dice of his interests, and that he was,
by fraud or accident. deprived of his
FOUR Daily Pinkney 30
sonctitutioinal right to be heard there
on in the court of last record. and
that he was himself without default.
Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from the district court of
Williams county. Pollock. J.
Action by John Bruegger as trus-
tee of the Bruegger Mercantile Com.
pany. against Joseph Cartier.
From an order sustaining a de.
murrer, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
lsk and Moellering and A. ]. Dryer
for appellant
George A. Gilmore, for defendant.
Opinion of the court by Carmody.
j.. all concurring, except Fisk. j.. not
participating.
The State of North Dakota, respond.
ent, VS.. Peter 1ldvedson. appellant
l. Defendant was tried and con.
victed OF the crime of keeping and
maintaining a liquor nuisance in a
certain building situated in the city
of Minot, a particular description OF
the place not being designated. The
proof showed that at the date the
offense was committed defendant con.
Quoted hotel and that in the rear
of such hotel and but three feet there.
from In small building with a side
walk between them and a narrow
passage way, and that to gain en-
trance to, or an exit from such small
building it was necessary to pass
through the hotel. The proof shows
that the defendant made sales of I'm.
toxicating liquor, both in the base
ment of the hotel and in this little
building in the rear.
Held, under the facts, that both
structures were used by defendant to.
gether for the convenient conduct of
the prohibited traffic, and that with.
In the meaning of section 1918. re.
viseu codes, 1905, they constituted one
pace for the maintenance of such
nuisanse, hence, it was not error to
deny defendants motion to require
the prosecution to elect which build.
ing they would reply on as the place
where the nuisance was maintained
2. Following the rule announced in
State VS.. Poull. IA N. D., 557, Held
that upon conviction for keeping and
maintaining liquor nuisance, the
court is not authorized to direct the
abatement of such nuisance where the
indictment or information fails par
ticularly to describe the place where
such nuisance is maintained
3. The judgment upon a convic.
ton for keeping and maintaining a
liquor nuisance adjudged that a lien
be established for the amount of the
fine and costs against the property
on which the evidence discloses that
such nuisance was maintained.
Held, that even if this was error,
it was non-prejudical for the reason
that the proof discloses defendant to
be the owner of such property, and
under section 1919 r. c.. 1905, such
fine and costs are made lien on all
of defendants real property until they