Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-11-20

suit is for commission of one dOllai.
per acre and defendant claims that
sale was not made under the terms
Of the circular but upon subsequent
agreement between himself and
plaintiff, whereby plaintiff agreed to
receive nothing whatever for his SER
vices. Trial was had to fury and
Judgment was had by plaintiff. De,
PENDANT appeals and excerpts to the
charge given by the court to the
jury.
~ The court charged the jury
among other things as follows: did
the defendant agree to pay the, plain
tiff $3.50, or a dollar an acre for sell
ing the land in question? If you
are satisfied that there was such an
agreement made, then it is your duty
to bring I'm verdict in favor of the
plaintiff" Elsewhere in the charge
the court went fully into the ques-
ton of contracts in general, and this
contract in particular, and, we think,
fully covered that subject. The case
will not therefore be reversed upon
d iAltlc CoCIlpC IlAO NlAoA TO-
b az The court instructed the jury
as follows: For it is for you to say
whether or not in this case the plain
tiff has established his case or con-
WINGED you jurymen by a preponder>
ance of testimony that there was a
binding contract entered into be-,
tween these parties. whereby the de-
PENDANT agreed to pay the plaintiff
$3.50 as commission for the sale OF
the land in question. If you are sat,
isfied, as intinated a moment ago,
that the plaintiff has proved to your
satisfaction that there was such a
contract, then it is your duty under
oath to bring in verdict in favor OF
the plaintiff" This instruction was
excepted to, that they failed to pre-
sent to the jury the necessity of the
contract being performed by the
plaintiff in that it fails to state that
before the plaintiff will be entitled
to recover he must first sell the land
according to the terms of said con-
tract. This also was q mere escript
from the charge and this court will
not reverse the judgment when the
whole charge fully covers the, sub
ject as it does in this case.
6 1t is argued for the first time
in this court that the trial court in
structed the jury to find interest due
to the plaintiff in case he recovered
and that this is error because inter-
est rests in the discretion of the
jury. This objection was not incor-
porated in the exception to the
charge and was not called to the az
tention Of the trial court at the time
of the motion for new trial. There
fore 1t will not be considered upon
this appeal.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appealed from the District Court
of Emmons county, Winchester, j.
Affirmed. Opinion of the Court BY
Burke, j.
Armstrong & Cameron, Of Linton,
N. D., attorney for defendant and
appellant. Newton, Dullam & Young
of Bismarck, N. d. of counsel.
Charles S. Lane of Linton, N. D.,
and Sutherland & Payne, attorneys
for plaintiff and respondent.
Emory and Henry college, Virginia.
until recently an institution of the
literary type, shows interestingly
the trend Of the times in it's efforts
| to meet more directly, tile needs OF
the immediate vicinity. without
weakening its literary departments.
the college is seeking to put its
Young men into touch with the every
day life Of the rural communities
from which they come. Recently q
demonstration agent was secured to
have his hearquarters at the college
and direct agricultural and indus
trial work both for the students OF
the college and the people of the sur.
rounding community.