The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1928-11-26

Barnes County, Hon. A. T. Cole,
Judge.
Affirmed.
Opinion Of the court by Burr, J.
Richie e. Ployhar and A. F. Grief
fenius, of Valley City, N. D., attor-
neys for plaintiff and respondent.
Mr.. Scott Cameron, Of Bismarck,
N. D., attorney for defendant and
appellant.
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and
Respondent,
VS..
Karl Luithle jr., Defendant and APP
pellant.
1. In an action to determine the
PATERNITY of child the District
Court may permit the jury to return
a sealed verdict.
2. Where the evidence in the
case is conflicting on the material
points at issue and the jury in the
case found in favor of the state -
there being evidence to sustain all
of the material allegations in dis
pute-the verdict of the jury will
not be disturbed.
3. The charge of the court as to
the burden of proof is not necessar-
lily determined by an isolated ex-
cerpt from the charge. To deter
mine whether the court erred in
placing the burden of proof the
whole charge will be examined. In
the instant case it is held the court
did not improperly place the burden
of proof.
(Syllabus by the court.)
| Appeal from the District Court
Of Hcttinger County, Hon. F. T.
Lembke, Judge.
Affirmed.
Opinion of the court by Burr, ].
J. X. Murray, States Attorney,
Mott, N. D., attorney for plaintiff
and respondent.
Crawford, Cain & Burnett, Dick
inson, N. D., attorneys for defendant
and appellant.
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and
Appellant,
VS..
Harry Vogt, Defendant and Re-
spondent.
/. A motion for a new trial on
the ground that the verdict is
against the evidence is addressed to
the sound judicial discretion of the
trial court and the appellate court
will not interfere with the trial
courts ruling unless it is shown
that such discretion has been abused
2. In the instant case it is hello
that the trial court did not abuse
it's discretion in ordering a new
trial.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court Of
Renville County, Hon. w. J. Knee
shaw, j., Harry Vogt was convicted
of the crime of rape in the first de-
gree. The trial court ordered new
trial and the state appeals.
Affirmed.
Opinion of the court by Christian
son, ].
Geo. F. Shafer, Attorney General
Bismarck, N. OAK, and Geo. I. Rod
safer, States Attorney, Renvill'
County, N. Dak., Attorneys fo
Plaintiff and Appellant.
E. R. Sinkler and G. o. Brekke
Minot, N. OAK, Attorneys for De
PENDANT and Respondent.
, The State of North Dakota, Plaintiff
and Appellant,
VS..
Ed Ehr, Manager of Waverly Cafe
Defendant and Respondent.
1. The regulation Of the hour
of labor for females comes within
the police power of the state and
{. statute directed to reasonable regu
lation does not conflict with the du
: process or equal protection clause
E Of either the state or federal consti
2 tuition.
: 2. A statute. regulating and lin
. iting the house of labor for wome
r in manufacturing, mechanical 0
: mercantile establishments, laundr,
hotel or restaurant, or telephone Q
n telegraph establishments, or in eS
: press or transportation companie
a to eight and one-half (8h) hours j
: one day, and forty-eight hours !
one week, is a reasonable regulatio
+ and limitation in cities and towns q
$ five hundred 5000 or more inhab
e tants.
! 3. The legislature in 1919 Ell
n acted a law providing that no fl
t male shall be employed in any mar
], ufacturing, mechanical or mercal
t tile establishment, laundry, hotel {
; restaurant, or telephone or telegrap
i establishment or office, or in an
express or transportation compan
: in the State Of North Dakota MOI
It than eight and one-half (8h) hour
h in any one day or more than six 4
IS days or more than forty-eight houl
: in any one week, provided. howeve
e that this Act shall not apply to 4
+ males working in rural telephol
e exchanges or in villages or towns
: less than five hundred (6OO) pop,
it lation. This law was reenacted
1923, 1926, and 1927. without chanl
and the additional legislation add
film 1923. 1e1t and 1927. may b =