The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1926-02-20
Supreme Court
Decisions

From Durletgh County
Minot Special School District
Number One, a municipal cor. .t,s
poration, ct al. FeE
Plaintiffs and Appellants.
vs., w r. ts r- !
S. A. Olsness, as Commissioner :,
Of insurance Of the. State Of Is.
North Dakota,
.,,, . ID, Defendant and Respondent.
l. Chapter 159, Laws 1919 (amend-
ed by Chapter 154, Laws l925) esl
tablishing q State Fire and Tornado
Fund for the purpose Of furnishing
fire and tornado Insurance upon the
property Of the state, and counties,
cities and other political subdivisions
thereof, is not unconstitutional on
the ground that it abrogates or inn
pairs the right Of freedom Of con-
tract. ~
2. Said Chapter ,159 does not vio-
late any express or implied consti-
tutional guarantee Of the right of
local self-government.
3. The wisdom, necessity or. ex-
pediency of legislation are matters
for legislative, and not for judicial,
determination.
4. Whether the plan Of insurance
provided by the State Fire and Tor
nado Fund law is adequate or made
quate, safe or unsafe, are matters
for legislative, and not for judicial,
determination.
S. A litigant can be heard to ques-
ton the validity Of an act only when
and insofar as, It Is applied to his
disadvantage. !
6. Chapter 159, Laws 1919, does
not create an indebtedness on the
part Of the State of North Dakota Al
all. Any claim arising by reason Of
loss under said statute is q claim
against the State Fire and Tornado
Fund alone. a4'
Z. Said Chapter $50 is not uncen.
stitutional on the ground that Il
delegates taxing power to the Gem.
mission Of Insurance. I'd
From a judgment Of the; District
Court. Of .Burleigh County, Jansenios
j., plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed. Opinion of the Cour'
by Christensen, Oh. j.
L. ]. Palda, Jr., c. II. Aaker, e.. +
Brace. 'Minot, N. D., attorneys for ap
pellants.
George F. Shafer, Attorney Geaer,
al, John Thorpe, Assistant Attorney
General. Bismarck, N. D., for re
spondent.
From Mountrail County
The State of North dakota,
Plaintiff and Respondent
Tvs.
Jack panchuk, "
Defendant and Appellant
SYLLABUS: s
l. 1t is always permissible 4
prove facts and circumstances tend
ing to show the bias or prejudice o.
y witness. The range OF the cross
examination and the inquiry. fol
this purpose, is largely within ths
sound discretion, of the trial c6ut
and his conclusions in that behall
will not be disturbed unless abuse d
discretion appears. Held, for reason!
stated in the opinion, that the cross
| examination Of witness for tn
state, in q prosecution, under the pre-
| hibitfon law, was not improperly re
stricted.
2. Proof Of one sale Of intoxicat
| ing liquor, in violation Of Sections
and lB, Chapter 1858, s. Z. 1928 i
sufficient to warrant q conviction O
| the crime Of engaging in the liquor
| traffic; and it is not in its nature
! continuing offense.
5. Where the plea of prior ae
quittal is interposed, the defehdahl
hes . constitutional right, under tn
guaranty of trial by Jury, to havt
that issue, in so far as it IS one q
fact, submitted to the jury with ap
propriate instructions as to the Law
4. The right not to be put IN Jeo
pardy the second time Tor the SANE
offense is as important and shouit
be as scrupulously regarded as tn
right Of trial BY jury.
5. A person is In Jeopardy wnei
he is placed on trial, upon vaNt
| information or Indictment. before
court Of competent jurisdiction, IN
GLIDING q jury who have been swoIs
70 try him ..,s and all prsliminar'e' hay'
70. The prohibition of section !!
| OF the Bill OF Rights OF the Stat
Constitution is against q second ice
nardy for the same offense; tn
crimes must be identical in law AMI
in fact -.
-. The plea Of former scquittal i
| only available in CAGES whore the tW'
Iinformations or indictments are sus
| ceutible Of and must be sustained b!
the same proof; and II the averment
81 eithsr. Information would, II prov
1 ca under the other, support q con
Eviction under the latter. the Grim
j charged in the two are identical y
fact and in law. s.
l 8. Whether the Offenses are to
same in legal nature, is ordinarily !,
l.auestion Of Laws for the court
whether they are identical in TACT y
i question for the jury.
4 8. Where ~ information Is 1ile'
i against p. charging him with en
]! gaging in the liquor traffic BY sey
Ing intoxicating ltquss between 'an