Omaha daily bee., 1910-01-02
SUPREME COURT sYLLABI

157Sl. state on complaint Of Everson
against O'Rourke, Appeal from Douglas.
Affirmed. Reese, c. ),
l. Evidence of the unchaStity of a COM
plainant in a bastardy proceeding, outside
the period of CESSATION, is irrelevant to the
issue presented for trial.
2. By section 5, CHI. %, Compiled~Statutes
1909, it is provided that at the trial in a
bastaTdy proceeding the examination be-
fore the justice shall be given in evidence"
Whether II was the purpose of the leglsla-
ture to require, or pvrnlit, the examination
10, be reau without reference to the usual
rules OF evidence, OF whether or not II IS
within the discretion of the district court
10 pass upon and deciCe as to the compe
terCy, maJcrianty or relevancy OF the evil
derce taken before the justice OF the peace,
quaere.
3. Under the rule stated in Johnson
against johnson, 81 Neb. 60, lis n. w. 323,
II is held that an instruction to the trial
jury ii a witness had knowingly sworn
falsely to any material matter, they might,
il they saw fit TO 40 so, disregard all his
testimony except such portions as are
corroborated by the testimony of credible
Witnesses is not prejudicially erroneous
by reason of the statement OF the eXcep-
ton.
1878. Borche" against Mcclure. Appeal
from Cunning. Affirmed. Reese, c.. j.
1. The final settlement of a guardian with
his ward, mad in the proper court, after
the ward has attained his majority, where
full disclosures of the acts OF the guardian
have Deen made and the facts are known
to the ward. the ward has accepted and
receipted for his distributive share of the
estate In the hands of the guardian and re-
qUested the discharge OF the guardian, Is,
in the absence OF fraud or mlsrepresenta
ton. a ratification of his acts.
.. In such case the knowledge OF the ward
that a portion of the funds received by him
as the proceeds OF the sale of his land IN
partition proceedings would be a r%atitica-
zion and affirmance OF such SALE ana II
Would make no dttferNnce whether the par
tition proceedings were regular, VoidablS
or void.
1878. Stanser against Gather, Appea
from Webster. on motion for rehearing
motion oVerruled. Per curtain.
1897. Christensen against Omaha 4 C.. Is
ST. Ry. Co. Appeal from Douglas, Al
firmed. Dean, J.
l. Where the evidence would sustain M
verdict except that rendered by the jury
Iassigned errors IN giving or refusing IN
struction may be disregarded on appeal.
2. A motion for = new trial on the gtOun(
Of newly discovered evidence Is addressed
to the sound judicial discretion OF the cour
and will not be OVerruled unless a Gleal
abuse OF discretion is shown.
Z The evidence examined, discussed II
the opinion and held sufficient 10 sustain
the verdict OF the jury.
1892. Hutch against Hutch. Appeal IRON
Hamilton. Reversed and remanded Dean
/. In an action brought TO annul a mar
rage on the ground of fraud the burdei
h on the plaintiff to establish the frauI
, kreIed upon by him to effect the annul
p. The evidence examined and discusse
In the opinion; held, insufficient TO sustat
the judgment OF annulment OF the mar
rage.
! Franklin. Affirmed. Root, j.
l. In bastardy proceedings, defendant
I wife having testified TO facts tending I
i prove that about the time plaintiff becam
/, pregnant she Was intimate with a ma