Omaha daily bee., 1910-01-02

assess void special assessments levied I'M
der the charter of 1897, is not void as class
legislation, because 1t excludes from IT'S
operation void assessments levied under
former charters.
1874. Miller against Chicago. Burlington
IL Quincy Railway company. Appeal, Gus
ter. Affirmed. Fdwcett, j.
l. "a common carrier of live stock, can
not. by contract with a shipper, relieve it
self, either in whole or in part, from liabll-
ity for injury or loss resulting from its
own negligence" Chicago, Rock Island &
Pacific Railway company against Witty,
80 Nebraska 3I6.
2. The acts of congress examined and re-
ferred to in the opinion, held, not to in
any manner supersede or amend the rule at
of a common carrier for it's negligence in
the transportation Of property by interstate
shipments.
1924 Luther against State, Error from
Harlan. Petition in error dismissed. Root, j.
/. When the district court assesses a fine
in a misdemeanor case, it may, in its dis
erection, order the defendant to remain in
the county Jail until the fine and cosLs are
satisfied. If no such order is made, the
clerk has authority to issue an execution
commanding the sheriff to collect the fine
and costs upon and a sale of defendants
goods and chattes, and for want thereof, to
levy upon defendants body and commit
him to the county Jail there to remain until
the fine and costs shall be paid, secured to
be paid, or otherwise discharged according
to law.
1887 Carbon against City Savings bank
appeal, Douglas. Affirmed. Barnes, j.
l. Where, on an appeal from a directed
verdict i'm favor of the defendant in a per-
Sonal injury case this court has held that
the cause should have been submitted to the
jury on its merits, and the evidence upon
a second trial is practically the same as on
the first trial, upon a second appeal such
holding viii, be treated as the law of the
case; and error cannot be predicated on a
refusal of the trial court to again instruct
the jury to return a verdict for the de-
PENDANT.
. II, sI,cb a q asa 81 capnot ha i,rgad tbat
the evidence Is insufficient to sustain a
verdict for the plaintiff.
3. An unnecessary or inappropriate in
struction is not ground for reversal un-
less IL is shown to ave worked an injury
to the rights Of the complaining party; and
where II is apparent that the giving Of the
instruction was not in any manner pre-
judicial to the rights of such party, the
giving of such an instruction will be held
to be error without prejudice.
e. In a personal injury case where the
plaintiff has introduced substantial evidence
showing that the injuries complained Of are
of a permanent nature, it Is not error to in
titled to recover for physical pain and mem
tai suffering, II any, which the evidence
reasonably certain for the evidence she
Will endure in the future as a natural and
direct result of such injuries, taking into
consideration the age OF the plaintiff at the
time the accident happened and her rea-
sonable expectancy of life
5. other Instructions examined, discussed
in the opinion and held, 10 have been prop
e. Where the trial court has. upon his
own motion, properly instructed the jury
\ upon all of the Issues involved I'm a case
Il is not error to refuse additional! instruc-
lions requested by either party.
In re ]. J, Dunn. Motion to vacate 9rde1r
of disbarment oyerruled. Reese, c. j.
I-"Where an offense in the nature OF
contempt is committed in the presence OF
the court, notice to the offender is not
usually essential before punishment q
Wallace, 372); and It is immaterial, where
tho contempt consists in the use OF OF
fensiYe language, whether 1t be Spoken
openly or presented TO the court in printed
or written argument. Q9 Howard, 49,
In re Wooley, IL Bush (Ky.) So
Q. "A petition (brhefD for a rehearinl
is not a pleading. but an argument ad.
dressed to the court and the individual
members Of the court; and TO incorporate
into such CUR contemptuous, scan.
dalous, OF insulting matter, is to commit
in open court an act constituting a con
tempt on the part OF the attorney Id.
3. Where the matter spoken or writer
is of itself necessarily contemptuous, Of
fensive or insulting, the disaVoWal OF az
intention to commit a contempt or retlec
upon the court or any member thereo
cannot justify the act, although It ma!
be considered as tending to excuse AM
In mitigation.
GUS, ~insolent or insulting conduct or Ian
guage is inherent in every court havtnl
common law Jurisdiction. without any eX
pressed statutory authority. THE righ
OF self-preseTvation is an inherent right II
the courts, not derived from the legisla
ture. and cannot be made 20 depend upol
the legislative will" In re Wooley. l
8. An open. notorious and public insul
TO the highest judicial tribunal OF IN
state, for which an attorney contuma
ciously refuses in any way TO atone, ma.
Justify the refusal OF that tribunal. &
recognize him in the future as one or u
officers; and In a proceeding against hiI
for contempt, II the cOntumacy be therci