Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-11-28
Supreme Court

supreme court |
IN SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA.
w. r. Strobel, Plaintiff and Respondent
vs.. Thorston Thorstensen, Defendant ana
Appellant.
defendant went to the plaintiffs place
9 business and asked to be shown q buggy
would give him $50 in cash and a colt
which he valued at 500 for one Of The
buggies. Plaintiff said: "All right, | will
go gu and look at the colt in q day or
and delivered the buggy to the defendant.
About six weeks thereafter he went to
the farm Of the defendant to examine the
col, bu no agreement was reached re-
are SET forth in full in the opinion, it is
ID That the allegations Of the COM
Splaint to the effect that defendan had
agreed Q pay $50 Tor ne are not
the court should have allowed the motion
Of defendan for a directed verdict. The
plaintiff had brought about the misunder-
standing himself but It was his duty TO
buggy when the same was rendered to
him by the defendant at the time when
lie first learned that an agreement could
not be reached. Having. lief the buggy
with defendant and misled him by his
press agreement upon the part Of the
defendant to pay sash instead of pay
ment by delivery Of the colt Having the
burden Of proof he must ~substantiate the
allegations of this complaint in this ACTON
(Syllabus by the Coult.)
Appealed from the County Court of
Wells County, Jansonius. J.
Reversed, Opinion Of the Court by
John A. Layne, of Fessenden, N. D.,
Attorney for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Youngblod Il Whipple of Fessenden. N.
D.. Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant
STATE or NORTH DAKOTA IN sU-
PREME COURT.
The Stntc of North Dakota, Plaintiff
and Respondent, VS.. Luther j.. Boyd, De-
PENDANT and Appellant.
Section 1919 r.. c.. 1905 provides for
a change of theN place Of trial Of a Grim.
such prejudice exists in the county where
the offense was committed and on the
part OF certain officials, that a fair and
impartial trial cannot be there had. Sec
ion 1920 Il. c.. 1906 requires that the petit
ton for a change Of the place Of trial be
presented at the first term of court at
which he action can be ried and before
the trial is begun, or if he action has been
continued, at any time before the term
to which it Is continued, upon reasonable
ney appointed to prosecute. Sec. 1929 4:
G.. 1905 provides for the calling in of
another judge to preside during the trial
OF a criminal action, when an affidavit al
leging prejudice of the judge Of the dis
trlct IN which the county is situated, and
also for q change Of the place OF trial
and of the judge, when a combined affi-
davit, alleging prejudice OF the character
described in SEE. 1919 and Of the judge, is
presented.
It is held, (a) that the terms Of Sec.
1929 are mandatory and that, on the pre-
sentaion of Il peiion alleging prejuice Of
he people, etc., n Of the. judge. the
judge of that district has no further juris-
he order of transfer, and ecure the at
tendance of another JUICE to preside at the
trial; 90 that the provisions Of Sec. 1920
are not applicable to a petition filed in
tition or affidavit filed, which sets forth
The grounds for a change of the place OF
trial and of the judge, in accordance with
the terms Of Sec. 1929, is presented In
time when filed before the trial has be.
mad and no notice has been served upon.
the prosecuting attorney of the applica-
ton for such changes.
(%Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from a Judgment of the District
Court Of Mckenzie county in a criminal
action, Hon. Frank E. Fisk. T.
REVERSED: Opinion of the Court by
Spalding, G. J.
Aaron j. Bessie. of Williston, N. D..
Charles c. Converse, States Attorney,
of Schafer, N. D.. and Andrew Miller,
Attorney General, of Bismarck, N. d. for
the State.
in THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
State OF North Dakota, Plaintiff and
Respondent, VS.. c.. J. Olson, Defendant
and Appellant.
which makes it unlawful for any person,
firm or corporation to import, manufac-
ture, distribute, or give away any snuff
or substitute thereof, under whatever
that has been fermented, or dried, or
favored, or pulverised, or cut. or scented,
or otherwise treated or any substitute
thereof or imitation thereof inended to be
further provides that Ordinary plug, fine
Gu, or long cut, chewing tonacco as now
commonly known to the trade Of this
state shall not be included in such defi-
milton, is constitutional and cannot be
assailed upon the ground that l deprives
any person OF life, libery, or property
without due process of law, or denies to
any person the equal protection Of the
laws.
(2). he courts can take judicial notice
that the use Of tobacco in my form is
uncleanly and that its excessive use is
Injurious.
(3I The courts may take judicial notice
that the use of tobacco in any form by
the young is injurious, and thai the use
of snuff is especial so.
"a Police statutes can only be set
aside as unreasonable intcrferences with
the right to liberty and property II IL
N-,-n --.-k Al.AT ~ 80 -, ~ No ~,e,sI Ia yn
any reasonable relation to the public health
morality, or to the real public welfare.
~ The courts may take cognizance
of the fact that snuff in North Dakota
is generally used by holding 1t between
ton, or by plastering it upon the gums,
and that i is absorbed raher than chew
ed.
Co The courts may take judicial notice
that tobacco held between the lip and
Alo y ullr1SS- Or, MIA 81 Grad y 1lnnn tho gums