Omaha daily bee., 1911-08-20

PENDANT objected TO an instruction given
by the court and prepared and offered
an instruction in lieu thereof Upon ap-
peal this court reversed the judgment for
error in the instruction given, and in re
fusinE the requested instruction. Upon
second trial the court gave the instruction
formerly requested by defendant and APP
second appeal OF the same case this court
will not reverse the judgment because of
alleged error in said instruction.
3 A married woman who Ia accustomed
10 receive compensation for services
rendered and work performed for others
than her own family may contract for
medical services or other necessaries for
herself and family. and in an action By
her TO recover damages for personal IN
jury 4 is not error to instruct the jury
that she can recover such amount as she
has necessarily expended for medical care
and that they should include such reason
able charges as she has incurred and
become obligated to pay"
3. Non-eX pert witnesses are competent TO
testify as TO circumstances and conditions
that any person OF ordinary intelligenSe
testify whether a person who has been in
Jured and with whoa they We're familiar
appeared to be suffering pain. the APP
observed by them tending TO show the
nature and extent of the injury.
4. When the evidence IS conflicting as TO
whether physical conditions existing
some time after a personal injury We're
caused or affected by such injury the
upon all OF the evidence.
). When part Of confidential COM
munication between physicians ana patent
Is put I'm evidence by one party the other
party may give the whole communication
''on the same subject" The trial court
must determine whether the evidence Of
Tered Is on the same subject and its rul-
ing will not be regarded as erroneous UNI
less there Is a clear abuse Of discretion.
g. In all action against municipal cor
poraton for injuries sustained by a fall
upon a defective walk the fact that the
person injured had passed over the same
Kxul IL I'm. lafA he
and might have avoided danger by taking
another way, and was in delicate physical
condition and was carrying articles which
made 1t more difficult to avoid the &C
cdent, will not constitute such evidence
of contrtbutory negligence as to require a
peremptory instruction for the defendant
I. verdict for sos for "medicine doc
tors bill and nurses bill' Will not be set
aside as unsupported, although there Is no
evidence that any nurses bills have been
Incurred, the evidence being sufficient to
support a verdict in that amount for
doctors bills' incurred.
8. A verdict for 500 for permanent in
juries'' will not be set aside as unsup-
ported IL the evidence justifies a finding
OF damages in that amount for injuries
1885. Gililand against city of Omaha APP
peal, Douglas. Reversed and remanded.
Letton, J. Sedgwick, j., not sitting.
1. The existence of step OF about eight
inches at the intersection of cross walk
which was safe and in good repair with
a sidewalk which was also In good con-
dition does not of itself constitute action
able negligence.
2. A city is not liable to one who is
familiar with the crossing and who on a
rainy evening on account of the wet and
slippery condition of a sound cross walk
Rb N stepping fPP distance o Of
intersecting sidewalk which was also in
good repair.
1G4l4. Maurer against Reifschneider Ap-
modified; cause remanded for further pro-
ceedings. Letton, J. sedgwick, j., NOT
! /. Asnoncupatve will is not effective to
pass title to real estate In this state
2. The possession Of land by life tenant
Will not be construed to be hostile and
I adverse to committeeman unless the
knowledge Is clearly brought home to the
latter that the life tenant claims the entire
estate In his own right, adverse and hostile
to any claim or interest in the land by
the reInainder-man or others claiming
under him.
| 3. The recording of a deed conveying tn,
entire estate to a third person by a life
tenant who remains in possession OF tn,
premises. is not alone sufficient to star
the running of the statute of Limitations
against an action to quiet title brough
by the refnainder-rnan under sections
10S6S. 1OSI0, Ann. ST., 1909
T. Such an action does not accrue unit
knowledge that the life tenant In possession
home to the owner of the remainder.
5. In an action to quiet the title of
reinainderman as against life tenant Il
possession, equity will require as a conditio
ing her proportion OF a mortgage lien O
! the premises which existed at the time o
I the death OF the common ancestor an
which was paid by the life tenant
1896. Harse against Ramer Appeal. But
falo judgment district court affirmed
) all respects save with respect to taxatio
of costs. Each party TO pay it's own cost
{ in both courts. Lection, ].
Where in an ejectment case the evidenc
. Is sharply conflicting as to the true loca
as to the question OF adverse possession an
there Is sufficient evidence on each poir
3 to sustain this verdict, this court will nc
interfere with the findings of the Jury.
1876, Fitzgerald against Young. Appea
0 Lancaster. Affirmed. Rose. J.
{ /. Affidavits in support OF a motion fc
5 a new trial cannot be considered on appel
: unless made part OF the bill OF exceI
lions.
= pleads that words actionable per Sc weT
!, spoken of plaintiff by defendant in pre-.
" ence OF third person named and other
n proof that the words were spoken to sue
r person alone win sustain recovery.
g. On appeal judgment will not be r.
I. versed for an immaterial variance betwee
D an allegation in the petition and plaintiff
: proofs.
+ 4, To say of woman in her professic
i OF school teacher that she us crazy ar
" not fit TO teach school, or that she '.
& crazy and is an unmerciful liar and is unf
TO teach school, is actionable per Sc, II II
J. words are spoken to and heard by a thin
i person.
II g. In suit for Islander pleading an
IS proof OF special DAMAGES are unnecessar
q where imputation is actionable per se
4 g. Where words actionable per Sc al
;. proved as pleaded in an action for slande
the trial court should not sever words
4, phrases composing the defamatory matt
~ and instruct the jury that the dismemberS
~ parts are not defamatory.
" Z. In proving a Islander composed
A. several phrases a witness is not require
= TO state In an answer TO a single questtC
IL ali Of the defamatory matter pleaded b
- Il IS sufficient to testify in several answe
y, TO all OF the phrases composing the who
: and state facts showing that they we
,; published in one conversation In the sen
alleged In the petition.
g. II criticism OF an instruction is bas'
on particular testimony such testimor
should be specifically pointed out in Il
~ brief Of a correct reference to the page
~ pages In the bill OF exceptions, where
," may be found
g. A defamer who publishes q sland
IN may be held liable for the consequence
"a OF later publication naturally. resultii
g. from his act
10 On appeal appellant cannot predica
49, error on ruling in his own favor.
m H. Where malice is an issue In an acu'
~ for SANDER the plaintiff may show that d
PENDANT repeated the words both before al
+