JONES v. AUDUBON COUNTY. (Supreme Court of Iowa. April 12, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Audubon county; A. B. Thornell, Judge. Plaintiff is the assignee of a claim made by a deputy sheriff against defendant county for services in that capacity from January 1, 1896, to October 1, 1897. There was a demurrer to his petition, which was overruled. Defendant electing to stand thereon, judgment was rendered against it for the amount claimed. It appeals. Affirmed. Fred H. Blume, for appellant. H. F. Andrews, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. This case involves the question of the liability of a county having less than 28,000 population for the services of a deputy sheriff, under chapter 75, Acts 25th Gen. Assem. No question is made as to the amount claimed, if plaintiff is entitled to anything. The case is ruled by Mentzer v. Marion Co. (Iowa) 87 N. W. 440. Affirmed.

LA CROIX v. HOLDEN et al. (OGDEN, Intervener). (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 22, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Woodbury county.

PER CURIAM. This case involves substantially the same issues which were considered in Ogden v. Buckley, 89 N. W. 1115. The two cases were by stipulation of parties tried in the district court upon the same evidence, and by further stipulation the appeals in both cases have been submitted in this court upon the same briefs. Following the decision in Ogden v. Buckley, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

RASMUSSEN v. EASTERN BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N. (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 26, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Pottawattamie county; W. I. Smith, Judge. Action to recover an amount claimed to be due plaintiff on a certificate of stock in the defendant association. Trial to the court without a jury. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals. Affirmed. Stone & Tinley and L. C. Crouch, for appellant. Ross & Ross, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The assignments of error in this case are practically the same as those in the case of Field v. Same Defendant (decided at this term) 90 N. W. 717, and involving substantially the same issues and evidence. So far as any questions are properly raised by the assignments, they are fully disposed of in that case. Affirmed.

STATE v. BOOKER. (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 23, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Wapello county; F. W. Eichelberger, Judge. The defendant was accused and convicted of the crime of rape. He appeals. Affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The cause was submitted on an abstract, without argument. We have examined the entire record with care and find no error. The evidence amply sustains the conviction, and the sentence of the court was deserved. Affirmed.

STATE v. BOYD. (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 26, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Van

Buren county; Robert Sloan, Judge. Indictment for seduction. Defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year, from which sentence he appeals. Affirmed.

PER CURIAM. This case is submitted on a transcript. An examination of the transcript discloses no error in the proceedings, and the judgment is affirmed.

STATE v. BOYD. (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 28, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Jefferson county; M. A. Roberts, Judge. Defendant was convicted of maintaining a nuisance, by keeping a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors. He appeals. Affirmed. Coykendall & Huglin, for appellant. Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM. The case comes to us upon a transcript, with no argument for either party. We have examined the record, and discover no error. Affirmed.

STATE v. GREGORY. (Supreme Court of Iowa. June 2, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Pottawattamie county; Walter L. Smith, Judge. Defendant was convicted of a third offense of larceny of property exceeding in value the sum of $20 in each instance. He appeals. Affirmed. S. B. Snyder and Mynster & Lindt, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

PER CURIAM. The case comes to us upon an abstract, without argument for either party. We shall content ourselves with stating the conclusions reached. The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled. The evidence supports the verdict, and the proceedings seem to have been in conformity to law. Affirmed.

STATE v. LOAR. (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 21, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Van Buren county; Robert Sloan, Judge. The defendant was accused and convicted of the crime of attempting to produce a miscarriage, and appeals. Affirmed. S. E. Irish, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

PER CURIAM. This cause is submitted on a transcript of the indictment, ruling on motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial, and the judgment entry. The proceedings appear to have been without error, and the judg ment is affirmed.

STATE V. PASNAU et al. (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 26, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Wapello county; T. M. Fee, Judge. Henry Mungoven, jointly indicted with his codefendants, for the crime of an assault with intent to murder, was convicted of the crime of an assault with intent to commit manslaughter, and from the sentence and judgment imposed he appeals. Affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The case is submitted by the attorney general on a transcript of the record, showing copies of the indictment, plea, motion for a continuance, instructions, verdict of the jury, judgment and sentence of the court, motion for a new trial, appeal bond, and notice of appeal. Defendant is not repre sented in this court; but we have examined the record before us, as is our duty, and find no error. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

In re STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONSENT TO SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN IOWA COUNTY. Appeal of ZOPE. (Supreme Court of Iowa. May 29, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Iowa county; Martin J. Wade, Judge. This case involves the sufficiency of a statement of consent to the sale of intoxicating liquors. The board of supervisors found the statement to be sufficient. Thereafter a denial of its sufficiency was filed in the district court, together with the required bond, and the matter was duly certified to the latter tribunal for hearing de novo. The district court held the statement insufficient, and from its judgment to that effect this appeal is taken. Affirmed. Hedges & Rumple and J. T. Beem, fo appellant. Popham & Havner and Milton Remley, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The questions presented on this appeal by appellant are the same as were involved in the case of Green v. Smith, 111 Iowa, 183, 82 N. W. 448. Every point now sought to be made was ruled in that case adversely to his contentions here. We are not disposed to review that holding. Following it, the judgment must be affirmed.

CROSSON et al. v. VOGT. (Supreme Court of Michigan. May 8, 1902.) Error to circuit court, Wayne county; William L. Carpenter, Judge. Action by John Crosson and others against Fred Vogt. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Affirmed. Lehmann & Riggs, for appellant. John D. Harger, for appellees.

GRANT, J. Plaintiffs and defendant executed a land contract, dated November 17, 1897, by which the defendant agreed to sell certain land to the plaintiffs for the purpose of erecting a store or shop and a dwelling house there

on.

Defendant loaned plaintiffs the money with which to erect the building. One Smith was the contractor to build it. Whether that contract was made with plaintiffs or with defendant we are unable to determine from the record. The record is very unsatisfactory, and it is difficult from either the record or the briefs to make a connected statement of the transaction. Neither the land contract nor the contract to build appears in the record. Two hundred dollars are involved, and the dispute is whether that was a commission, agreed upon by Mr. Vogt with plaintiffs for loaning him the money, or whether plaintiff John did work upon this building to the amount of $200, which defendant agreed to pay. The testimony was in direct conflict, and was properly submitted to the jury. We find no error upon the record, and no questions of sufficient importance to merit discussion. The judgment is affirmed. LONG, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred.

That case, therefore, is controlling, and further discussion is unnecessary. The judgment is affirmed.

GROH et al. v. GROH et al. (Supreme Court of Michigan. June 17, 1902.) Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county, in chancery; Joseph W. Donovan, Judge. Suit by Emme line Groh and others against Albert Groh and others. From a decree in favor of complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed. Ari E. Woodruff and Julius J. Thiede, for appellants. James H. Pound, for appellees.

an

HOOKER, C. J. We agree with the learned circuit judge that this cause is au unseemly controversy, not creditable to defendants Albert and Lillian Groh, and we think the testimony warrants the finding of deliberate overreaching by Albert, whereby the legal right of the complainants to easement through Frenchman's Creek lane was not set forth in the conveyances made to give effect to their agreement. We are satisfied that it was the understanding that this right should not be disturbed by the partition, and that the deed from Amber to Albert Groh should have been made subject to it, which was the clear agreement of the parties. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.

LONG, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred.

PEOPLE V. NIELSEN. (Supreme Court of Michigan. June 3, 1902.) Error to circuit court, Oceana county; Frederick J. Russell, Judge. Frederik Nielsen was convicted of embezzlement, and brings error. Reversed. Hartwick & Skeels (R. A. Montgomery, of counsel), for appellant. Horace M. Oren, Atty. Gen., and Wallace Foote, Pros. Atty., for the People.

HOOKER, C. J. The defendant was convicted of the offense of embezzlement. He and a copartner named Ambler owned and conducted a bank at Pentwater. Peterson, a cousin of the defendant, had some negotiations with him in relation to the former's taking Ambler's interest in the bank by purchase, and Nielsen, the defendant, made a proposition, the substance of which was that Peterson should borrow a sum of money in Europe, that it should be delivered to Nielsen or the bank, and that the same should draw interest, and Peterson should be employed in the bank until an arrangement for partnership could be made between Nielsen and himself. Peterson procured the money from friends in Europe, and delivered it to Nielsen at the bank, and he in turn delivered the draft to an employé, with directions to him to enter it for collection, and it was sent to the bank's correspondent at Chicago, and the credit exhausted by being drawn against.__ Subsequently the Pentwater bank failed and Peterson never recovered his money. The defendant's counsel insist that the uncontradicted testimony shows that the understanding was that the money should be deposited in the bank by Peterson until it should be needed, while the prosecution claims that the money was left by Pe terson with Nielsen, to be kept for him until the arrangement could be made with Ambler for his interest, when it was to be used to pay him. It is only upon the latter theory that the verdict can be sustained. We have examined the testimony bearing upon the subject, and are of the opinion that it leaves no room for doubt that the arrangement was as claimed by defendant's counsel. The testimony of Peterson, taken as a whole, is consistent with no other theory. The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

LONG and MONTGOMERY, JJ., did not sit. The other justices concurred.

RUTKOWSKI v. DEARBORN TP. (Supreme Court of Michigan. May 8, 1902.) Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Robert E. Frazer, Judge. Action by Minnie Rutkowski against the township of Dearborn. Verdict directed for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. William Look (Harry F. Chipman, of counsel), for appellant. Thomas Mulvihill (Richard I. Lawson, of counsel), for appellee.

PER CURIAM. This case is ruled by McKeller v. Monitor Tp., 78 Mich. 485, 44 Ñ. W. 412. Judgment affirmed.

SEVENTH DAY CHURCH OF GOD v. CONFERENCE OF CHURCH OF GOD et al. (Supreme Court of Michigan. April 22, 1902.) Appeal from circuit court, Van Buren county, in chancery; John R. Carr, Judge. Suit to set aside a deed by the Seventh Day Church of God against the Conference of the Church of God and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant conference appeals. Affirmed. R. M. Chase and David Anderson, for appellant. Thomas J. Cavanaugh, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The bill in this case was filed to set aside a deed made by the defendant school district to the defendant the conference of the Church of God; the complainant claiming title to it by virtue of a contract entered into with certain trustees and the defendant school district. The entire property is worth about $250. The question is one of fact. It involves no legal principle or question of interest or benefit to the profession. The learned circuit judge filed a written opinion, holding that the complainant is entitled to the specific performance of the contract between it and the defendant school district, and that the deed made by the defendant school district to the defendant the Conference of the Church of God is void. We are of the opinion that he reached the correct, equitable, and just conclusion. The decree is affirmed, with costs. LONG, J., did not sit.

DURGIN v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 16, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Charles M. Pond, Judge. Action by Martha Durgin against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Thomas Canty, for appellant. Albert E. Clarke, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. This action was brought by the plaintiff as a parent to recover damages for injuries to her minor son, 16 years of age, sustained while protruding his head from the window of a moving car on defendant's track, for the purpose of seeing whether he had arrived at his destination, "when it came in contact with a post supporting an overhead bridge, which post was six inches from the side of the car." A general demurrer was interposed, which was argued before the trial court at the same time the demurrer was heard in the case of Benedict v. Railroad Co., 90 N. W. 360. The allegations in this complaint, save in the respects above indicated, are in all material respects similar to the facts set forth in that case, filed this date, and we follow the view therein adopted. The order appealed from is affirmed.

KISTLER v. JOHNSON et al. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. June 20, 1902.) Appeal from municipal court of Minneapolis; Andrew Holt, Judge. Action by Jonas M. Kistler against Andrew Johnson and others. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant Backus-Brooks Company ap

LIEBER v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 16, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Brown county; B. F. Webber, Judge. Action by Hermann Lieber against the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed. Brown, Abbott & Somsen, for appellant. Albert Pfaender and Campbell & Campbell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The facts in this case are substantially the same as those presented in the case of Pfaender v. This Same Defendant, 90 N. W. 393, the opinion in which is filed herewith. The decision there made is followed, and the judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed.

STATE v. JOHNSON. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 2, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Mower county; Nathan Kingsley, Judge. Cris. Johnson was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and appeals. Affirmed. Greenman & Greenman, for appellant. W. B. Douglas, Atty. Gen., R. E. Shepherd, Co. Atty., and S. D. Catherwood, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The questions presented by the appeal in this case are the same as those considered and decided by the court in the case of State v. Johnson, 90 N. W. 161; and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, filed this day, the judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed.

=

STATE v. WAGENHALS. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. June 13, 1902.) C. F. Wagenhals was convicted of illegal sale of meat, and from a judgment appeals. Reversed.

PER CURIAM. This appeal follows the decision in State v. Rumberg, 90 N. W. 1055. . Order reversed, and cause remanded, that judgment may be entered for defendant.

VILLAGE OF KASSON v. LLOYD et al. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 23, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Dodge county; Thomas S. Buckham, Judge. Action by the village of Kasson against Frank R. Lloyd and others. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant Eliza Y. Willson appeals. Affirmed. J. A. Sawyer, for appellant. Samuel Lord & J. J. McCaughey, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment upon default was entered against appellant, and she moved for an order setting it aside and for leave to answer. The motion was based upon certain affidavits to the effect that judgment was entered without her knowledge and without notice to her, and contrary to an agreement between her agent and the respondent. The motion was based upon certain affidavits to which counter affidavits were filed. The court decided the motion adversely to appellant and based its decision upon the ground that her position as to the agreement and notice was not sustained. It is unnecessary to discuss the affidavits. It

is sufficient to say that the order was purely discretionary with the trial court, and we cannot find that its discretion was abused in denying the motion. Order affirmed.

CHESHIRE PROVIDENT INST. v. BICKNELL et al. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 17, 1902.) Commissioners' opinion._Department No. 3. Error to district court, Dundy county; Norris, Judge. "Not to be officially reported.' Action by the Cheshire Provident Institution against Fred E. Bicknell and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. A. E. Harvey, for plaintiff in error. J. W. James, P. W. Scott, and Ambrose C. Epperson, for defendants in error.

AMES, C. The facts in this case are in all essential particulars identical with those in the cases of Institution v. Gibson (not yet officially reported) 89 N. W. 243, and of Same v. Fuesner (not yet officially reported) 88 N. W. 849. Under the authority of those decisions, it is recommended that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

ALBERT and DUFFIE, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved; and, it appearing that the adoption of the recommendation made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

CHESHIRE PROVIDENT INST. v. COURTNEY et al. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 17, 1902.) Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 3. Appeal from district court, Furnas county; Norris, Judge. "Not to be officially reported." Action by the Cheshire Provident Institution against Martha I. Courtney and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed. D. G. Courtney, for appellants. A. E. Harvey, for appellee.

AMES, C. The facts in this case are conceded by counsel to be in all essential particulars the same as in the cases of Institution v. Gibson (not yet officially reported) 89 N. W. 243, and Same v. Fuesner (not yet officially reported) 88 N. W. 849. Under the authority of those decisions, it is recommended that the judgment of the district court be reversed, and the action dismissed.

ALBERT and DUFFIE, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved; and, it appearing that the adoption of the recommendation made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be reversed, and the action dismissed.

GOW et al. v. GAHLON et al. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 17, 1902.) Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 3. Appeal from district court, Douglas county; Dickinson, Judge. "Not to be officially reported." Action by Peter Gow against Matt Gahlon and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and Matt Gahlon and certain of the defendants appeal. Affirmed. Holmes & Morgan, for appellants. Hamilton & Maxwell, for appellees.

AMES, C. This is an appeal from an order of confirmation of the sale of real estate under a decree of mortgage foreclosure. No reason is assigned why the sale should be set aside, and it is therefore recommended that the order appealed from be affirmed.

ALBERT and DUFFIE, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved; and, it appearing that the adoption of the recommenda

tion made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the order appealed from be affirmed.

MOSELEY v. FILLEBROWN et al. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. May 8, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Fillmore county; Stubbs, Judge. Action by Fannie Moseley against J. M. Fillebrown and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant bank appeals. Affirmed. Chas. H. Sloan, for appellant. John Barsby, for appellee.

SEDGWICK, J. The Citizens' Bank of Geneva appealed from the confirmation of a sale of real estate in Fillmore county. There is no merit in the appeal. The objection that the officer who made the sale was not qualified to do so is based solely upon an affidavit, which says that he was not sheriff on the 24th day of January, 1900, the day of the sale. It is admitted in the brief filed that he was sheriff at the time the order of sale was issued, and no reasons are given in the affidavit, nor is there any statement of facts, from which it might be found that he had ceased to be sheriff. The court found that the sale was duly made by the sheriff of Fillmore county, and this objection is wholly without merit. It appears that no revenue stamp was attached to the certificate of the appraisement; but it has been several times held by this court that under the act of congress of 1898 omission of revenue stamps from certificates in legal proceedings in the state courts did not invalidate those proceedings. The decree of the district court is affirmed.

OMAHA LOAN & TRUST CO. v. McCUMBER et al. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 17, 1902.) Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 3. Appeal from district court, Douglas county; Dickinson, Judge. "Not to be officially reported." Action by the Omaha Loan & Trust Company against Orinda E. McCumber and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Orinda E. McCumber appeals. Affirmed. L. H. Kent, for appellant. F. A. Brogan, for appellee,

AMES, C. This is an appeal from an order of confirmation of a judicial sale of real property. No complaint is made by appellant, except that in her opinion the property sold too low. It is unnecessary to cite authorities to the effect that such a complaint, standing alone, will not be considered by this court. It is recommended that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

ALBERT and DUFFIE, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM. The conclusion reached by the commissioners is approved; and, it appearing that the adoption of the recommendation made will result in a right decision of the cause, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

POLK COUNTY v. NANCE COUNTY. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. June 4, 1902.) Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 3. Error to district court, Nance county; Marshall, Judge. "Not to be officially reported." Action by Polk county against Nance county. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. E. E. Stanton, for plaintiff in error. W. L. Rose, for defendant in error.

AMES, C. This is an action in which Polk county seeks to recover from Nance county the sum of $267.65 expended by the former county for the support of a pauper, who is alleged to have been, within 30 days prior to his becoming a public charge, a resident of the last-named county. The question of fact involved was by the trial court left to the jury