Omaha daily bee., 1911-05-07

preme court rendered today. The court
has decided that none OF the money
found on the yeggmen shall go to the
local officers as their reward for arrest
ing the men. Chief Malone claimed 370o
but the evidence according TO the decision
does not Justify his claim thereto The
judgment affirmed must be paid to the
indemnity company which insured the
Chapman bank against robbery and which
paid all loss incurred by the burglary,
which occurred in November, 1908.
The lowerecourt gave Judgment for
S1,2O4.62 against Malone and Cooper and
Judgment for S3,O22.O2 against two OF
the robbers, John Burke and Thomas
Kelley, who were later convicted and are
now serving time in the penitentiary.
John Dorm. third man arrested, had only
about 50 when het was placed under
arrest
The supreme court has affirmed the
judgment Of the district court against
Malone and Cooper. Judge sedgwick not
sitting in the case.
The company paid the bank $4,000 in
surance money and took an assignment
from the bank of it's claim upon the
money found in possession Of the rob-
bers. Malone alleged that the robbers
neys and that he would have to pay It to
the attorneys, but If it were found that
the money belonged to the indemnity
company then he was entitled to 500 of
II as reward money due from the COM
pany.
The indemnity company sued to re-
strain Malone and Copper from transfer
ring the money to attorneys of the rob-
berB or from retaining any Of II as a re-
ward for the arrest of the criminals.
The supreme court in its opinion says:
"A court of equity may enjoin g police
officer from transferring a fund taken by
him from burglars who procured It by
robbing a bank and may restore 1t to
the owner thereof"
The robbers alleged that the money
taken from them was not the identical
money taken from the bank. but the SUI
preme court holds that inasmuch as some
of the money found upon them was iden-
titled as money of the bank it may be as
sumed that all of 1t was.
supreme Court Opinions.
The following opinions were filed by the
supreme court:
Nocita against Omaha & Council Bluffs
Street Railway Co.; affirmed. Reese G. ].
Brucker against karin; affirmed. Faw-
cett. j.
Mauzy against Hinrichs; affirmed. Faw-
In rsEstate of SEEKER; SEEKER against
6eker, affirmed. Reese, G. J.
CAMEL against Rousch; reversed and re-
manded Sedgwick, ].
Aetna Indemnity Co. against Malone; af-
firmed. Rose, j.; Reese, G. j., concurs in
result; Sedgwick, j., not sitting.
Huchow against Katz; affirmed. Rose, j,
Omaha Cooperage Co. against Central
State Cooperage Co; affirmed. Barnes, j. T;
Root. j., not sitting.
Larson against Chicago & northwestern
Railroad Co; affirmed. Root, j.; Barnes
and Fawcett. j. j., dissent.
Harper against Harper; alfred. Rose j.
Miller against Miller; affirmed. Latton,
J. Fawcett j.. ooncurs in conclusion,
Howell against Howell; reversed and dis
missed Letton, j.
Root, ].
Miller against Hanna; reversed and re-
manded. Barnes, j.
Gordon against Hennings; reversed and
remanded. Root, ].
Drainage District No. 1, Richardson
county, against Bowker; affirmed. Barnes j.
Harrington against Hedlund; affirmed.
County Of Hamilton against Aurora Ma
tionRl bank; on motion to Vacate Judgment;
motion overruled. Root, j.; Rose and
SedRwick, j. j., not sitting.
Wilson against State; reversed and re-
mRnded Root j.
Gallitin against Tri-State Land Co.; af-
nrmed. Barnes ].
Golf against state; affirmed Fawcett, ].
Following are rulings on motions for
rehearing:
! Krull against Rose. overruled.
Krul against Rose; ov rrruled.
| Dreshtr against Becker; overruled.
! Henderson against Weidman; overruled
County OF Hamilton against Aurora Ma.
tlonal bank; overruled.