Grand Forks daily herald., 1915-07-07
against all persons accused of having

against all persons accused or having
committed a crime or public offense
and authorizes the filing of such an
information and the trial of the de-
fendant at such term, even though the
preliminary examination was held
during such term of the court, provid-
ed that a reasonable time and oppor-
tunity is afforded for the preparation
of his defense.
CD A witness whose name is not en-
dorsed on the information may be ex-
amined on behalf of the state in a
criminal prosecution where it is shown
that the attorney for the defendant
was given due notice Of the states in
tention to call such witnesses. and
when prior to the fling of the infor-
nation the prosecution, though it was
knowledge of the occurrence, it had
no knowledge that his teStiNiony would
be In any way material to the issues.
ca Where one is accused. of "main--
tanning liquor nuisance at q certain
place, proof of the issuance to such
person of a government license for
the sale Of Intoxicating liquors in the
town and state where such nuisance is
claimed to have been maintained, is
admissible. even though the premises
described in said license are different
from those mentioned in the inforna-
tion, as such evidence tends to show
that the defendant was in the business
of selling intoxicating liquors.
(5) The presumption that identity
Of names indicates identity of persons
will make admissible in q trial for
maintenance of liquor nuisance a
government license for the sale Of IL
quor issued to a person of the same
name as the defendant without pre-
liminary proof of the identity of the
person.
(e) A certified copy of the records in
the Office of the collector of internal
liquor license is admissible in evidence
in a prosecution for maintaining a H.
quor nuisance when properly proved
and such record is properly proved
when there Is attached thereto a GER
tificate by the collector of internal
revenue as to it's correctness and au-
thenticity.
CD A statement in a certificate of
the collector of internal revenue
which is attached to a certified copy
Of the record Of special tax payers and
registers of his district does not rem
der the admission of such record re-
that the record shows the issuance of
United States special tax stamp to the
defendant, when the record upon it's
face shows the same fact.
Appeal from the district court of
Burleigh county. Nuessle, J.. Prosecu-
tton for maintaining liquor nuisance.
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant
appeals. Affirmed. Opinion by the
court by Bruce, J.
From Grand Forks County.
An<t t.vvr Au%> r
Loan association, Plaintiff and Res
pondent. VS.. Lizzie N. White and John
F. White, Intervenor and Appellant.
Syllabus; The Whites, husband and
wife, signed an agreement to separate
and in accordance with this agree
ment to separate and in accordance
with this agreement the husband tried
to convey the wife property standing
in their joint names. This was at
tempted by both joining in deed to
a son. who in turn executed a deed
to the mother. Neither Of these deeds
was recorded until two years later. In
the meantime the wife applied to
plaintiff for a loan upon said property
in the sum Of $4,000 to take care OF
prior encumprances to said amount
In her written application she stated
that the premises were her home
stead and that she was a married
'W0ItaH. b0ln8 unable TO OBTAIN the
signature Of the husband, plaintiffs 9
agent conceived the plan Of h&ving ths
deed to the son recorded and taking
the mortgage from him. This was
done, but plaintiff demanded that the
mother join In the nofe and ratify the
acts of the son az to the mortgage
Plaintiff applied the full amount Of
the proceeds In liquidating the prior
encumbfances, (excepting 3<6e,70
paid the wifs.). The $4,000 mort.
gage was foreclosed and plaintiff OBJ
tained q sheriff's deed. This action
is to quiet title. Defendant and her
husband plead the homestead charac-
tor Of the premises and attempt to
set aside the 10000 mortgage be-
cause the husband did not Join in its
execution Trial de novo in this court
(1) The complaint was instatutory
form, alleging ownership and demand
Ing that defendant set forth her
claims Of title 30 that an adjudication
might be had, After the trial, at the
suggestion OF the trial court. an amen
ded complaint was flled setting forth
the details above enumerated and
asking for an alternative Judgment in
case the mortgage was declared void
that the prior encumbrances be rein
ststed. and that plsinti6 bs suprogat-
"a TO the intsfeats Of the hclde
thereoS. There was no error In allow.