Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1912-03-25

from Seward. On motion Tor reneaIlnS:
Former opinion modified. Judgment OF
affirmance adhered to- Motion ,or 70
hearing overruled. Per curiam. NO syi-
labus.
161l Fosha against Nebraska Moline
Plow company. Appeal from Nuckolls-
On motion for rehearing. Former opin-
ion and judgment modified. Motion Tor
rehearing. Per curian: No syllabus.
1882 Price against Fouke. Appeal from
Lancaster, overruled. Affirmed. Per Cur
lam. No syllabus.
1852, Mathews against Gillette. Appeal
from Brown. Affirmed. Rose, j.
In the district court county's fore
closure Of a tax hen on land without an
antecedent administrative sale Is not, on
account of that omission, void for want OF
Jurisdiction.
1897. MCGEE against Hungerford.f APP
peal from Dawes. Affirmed. Letton. j.
In this action to recover the reasonable
value of personal services as stenog-
r4pher. the fact that the jury awarded a
less sum than claimed by the plaintiff
to be due her does not establish that her
testimony was disbelieved and that there
fore the verdict Is not supported by the
evidence
172S2 Mcdonald against Brown. Appeal
from Pawnee county. Affirmed. Letton. J..
L Bastardy proceedings are civil and
not criminal In their nature.
2 The written exapination OF the COM
plainant before the Intercourse which re-
suited in her pregnancy was had upon
September g. and the evidence tended
to-show that IL defendant was guilty at
all II must have taken place on Septem-
her 90, an instruction that the jury
might find the defendant guilty whether
her intercourse was had on either date is
not erroneous.
ETo entitle a party to a new trial on
the ground of newly discovered evidence.
ar IN he
T. The evidence. copied in the opinion.
Is examined. and found not sufficient to
prove the intoxication OF rescuing
party.
s Instructions, a portion OF which are
set out in the opinion, are examined, and
8, The evidence. is found sufficient to
support the verdict OF the jury.
l1C8. Tiger against Button Land COM
pany, appeal, Lancaster, affirmed. Faw-
cett,lJ.
Evidence examined and partially set out
the findings and decree OF the district
iFczS. Perry and Bee company against
Holbrook Opera House company, af-
ffrfned. Barnes, y.
LA corporation when sued on its
promissory note executed in settlement Of
a debt contracted for materials used in
the corporate purpose to construct, at a
time. when II had contracted no other
debts and had a sufficient amount OF
money on hand to pay for such materials,
caiihpt defeat a recovery because OF a
provision contained In its charter limiting
the amount of its Indebtedness.
4 The fact that by the action Of a ma
ioriy Of the stockholders and directors
Of tho corporation II used Its funds for
purposes other than paying for the ma
terial purchased. affords no legal excuse
for It's refusal to pay for such material.
1l2A. Ward against Aetna Life lnsur,
anee company, appeal. Douglas, reversed
and remanded with directions to dismiss
the action. Rose. J.
l. The conjcctural opinion Of an expert.
based solely on a hypothetical question
not submitting all Of the material facts,
is insufficient to sustain q verdict.
2. Where the evidence Is insufficient to
sustain verdict In favor OF plaintiff Il
is error for the trial court to over-rule
a motion for a peremptory instruction In
favor Of the defendant.
ie756 Roddy against Missouri Pacific
Railway company. Appeal from Otoe
Reversed and remanded with directions
Sedgwick. J.
1. II the petition alleges two distinct
causes OF action and the Judgment is rol
n gross amount upon both causes OF &C
ton. the defendant will not be held 4
have abandoned his appeal to this cour
from the judgment as rendered. although
the verdict finds specially upon eaci
cause OF action and the errors assigned
in the brief relate to one cause Of actor
only.
O. II the party preparing the abstrac
has not given the other party an oppor
tunlty to make suggestions as to wha
the abstract should contain and has pur
posely or carelessly omitted matter
.t.t - h. l,as taKx NJ
case, and such defects are complalne,
Of and supplied In an additional abstrac
BY the other party, the rules will b.
construed literally In favor of the part!
not in fault
q The evidence which is stated In tn
opinion is found to be insufficient 4
support the judgment.
1852 Thomas against Shea. Appea
from Harlan. Affirmed. Rose. J. Reese
c. j., took no part In decision
I. A Judgment will not be reversed be.
cause the trial court, instead OF statlnl
the issues OF fact in concise form, CAV,
an instruction containing the substanc,
Of the petition. answer and reply anc
permitted the Jury to take the pleading
with them to the jury room, where sucf
Issues were fairly stated In other instruc
lions. and II appears that the appellant
was not preiudiced by the erroneous prac
tice adopted.
o An instruction to find for plaintiff II
an action for libel. unless the charge,
therein and each and every part Thereof
are found to be true, may not be preju
dicial TO defendant. as requiring stronger
proof Of the truth OF the charges thar
substantial accuracy and as demanding
proof OF immaterial statements. wher'
plaintiff. on undisputed evidence. was en-
titled to verdict for nominal damages a
least.
3. In the trial OF an action for libel
where evidence is admitted TO prov,
charges not pleaded for the purpose Of
showing malice. II Is not error for tn,
trial court in limiting such evidence 4
that purpose alone to single II out In ar
Instruction.
4. on appeal harmless error in an in
struction II not a ground for reversal.
5. The admission OF improper evidenc,
may be cured by an instruction with
drawing II from the jury.
G In an action for libel resulting in In
jury 10 plaintiff in his profession OF at
torney at law, verdict for ssooo held mo-
excessive.
less. Hans against American Transfe
company: Appeal from Douglas. Al
| firmed. Rose, J.
/. In reviewing instructions the charg
TO the jury should be construed as
whole
Am ASSIGNMENT that a particular in
on appeal without an examination Of II
/ merits. where appellant disregarded tn
rule requiring him to insert in his alb
straet the entire charge, II he objects Z
any part Of II.
g Error cannot be predicated on q re
jected offer Of proof not within tn
/ limits Of the question asked.
| Questions propounded to a witnes
riust not assume the existence OF q fac
/ not proven in the cause" Bennett
against Mcdonald. 80 Neb. "a
1 ifoR7. State ex rel. Green agains
Cowles, Appeal from Lancaster. Judg
ment Of district court reversed and actiol
dismissed at realtors costs. Fawcett, ]
/. The requirement OF section II. chapte
81, Comp. 81. 1911. that In the event Of |
default by any lessee OF Quotations
lands in the payment OF the serni-annua
rental due the state. the commissioner o
public lands and BUILDINGS Fsy cans