The Bismarck Tribune Newspaper, August 6, 1925, Page 2

PAGE TWO ~ THE BISMARCK TRIBUNE THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 1925 m rortyage sought e , they preserve the historical! Ward County, Lowe, J; from an or- | and John Thorpe, assists r evidence to sustain a und diseretion of the, trial) on the ground that the accident did ; re) an pe, unee | ‘i : 1 {for » wa reuted Trauduleut y of twelve persons with all its| der denying a motion for a new general, Bismarck, N. D2 lenged either m rt; h impeaching inter-| not arise in the course of emplo. | incidents, unless a contrary! trial, or, in the alternative, judg- for respondents. directed verdict, or r ve yi] him should| ment, or upon any other ground y 1 the Distriet Court of | yu ont notwithstanding . the’ verdic motion for a ne be so ; it of cate-|ing to the basis of the claimant's tut " inty, Hom, Fred Janse ie n by y, us| def nt appeals From Ward County cannot be considere: {PH z should not, be | right.” 4 be tu 1 | secured in seetion 7 ¢ 2 ersed and remand | 4. O. Lindstrom, Plaintif Fi A witnes s y suggest inferen From a judgment of the District 5 ed opinion of the Cot y| Rights, is the right as it exi vn of the Court by Burke, J. pellant, vs. A. S. Spicher, as Sheriff | ieating liquor, is acqué r raise issues. for. the | Court of Richland County, McKenna, teommon lew and und: H. Bradford, Minot, N. D., at The record in the ins! J., the defendant, North Dakota I w laloney, Farye, vrth) Constitution in Dak ‘ i -}torney for Appellant. Fr F e: testify to the alcoholic mined and the examination com-, Workmen's Compensation Bureau, | Daket fue Appellant cluding, as ¢ p - kb. R. . G. O. Brekke, | lic corporation, ieati a f a Hquid| plained of, held, for reasons stated | appe: | . Chase, a t 1 ¢] Minot, N. , attorneys for Re- ndents. P| h pd. in the ‘opinion, to be improper Reversed, i , 1 y ta, Attorney for Respond rove . ” yilabus: I 3 ons imposed by the} prejudicial. Opinion of the court by Christian- yer : iy 8 r- : | Where taxes assessed against al Fourth Amendment to the Constitu-| Appeal from the District Court of | son, Ch. J. ‘ Washington Public Urges . porting to dispose h the require k of mevéhanidl i st due, tion of the United States apply only | Ward County, Hon. ¢ H. Moe!l-| Svott Cameron, of Bismarck, N. D., ‘i . Jiment of unanin verdiets in unpaid, on at bulk of|to the federal yovernment and ring, Judge. "From a judgment of| attorney for appellant. 5 Legislative Aid to Save | From Cass County | civil cases, contre 7 7oof| Frank Milholl, Q F merehatdise th i limitations upon the reversal | conviction of robbery ind from an| Lemke é& Weaver, of Fargo, N. D., ‘ Bill of I one |e tespondents, h such taxes are P s order denying his motion for a new| attorneys for respondent, Viain un therefore, void tailway Compan “ admissibility of evidence | trial, defendant appe | District Court of Cas : : tern as used in the Bulk yf in a er d) Reversed. 7 ells C ty, N Dakota, Hon. ALT : ay e Sections 7224- inclusiv L. | by y oof the s| Opinion of the Court by Nuessle, J.|. 0 From W ME oan Judy sis and_entit + protect t on, OR, a. Ui sen ting: Cine Ora evi | Reversed and new trial ord ‘ 8 Under section 4777 | and benefits afforded by the aet. egralit es by rea- K . of Minot, attorneys E Netta B. the! Opinion of the Court by Johnson, | 40 ©. 1.1913, the Rail |" Appeal from the Court Section 18 of the | for defe , : yr iuistratrix. of the road Commissioners of the state have | of Ward County, Hon. Lowe, u he State of North George I. of hall, ana : seand Barnett & Rich !authority to compel train connections | , ceing the right of the | E.R. Sink f Minot, attorney Attor of competing lines when they are| Affirmed. be secure in their persons, | for respond Plaintiff, and within one half mile of any com.) Opinion of the Court by Nuessle, f dd Ay — told w farm audience re ‘speak ‘ . & Murphy ; ae fiien point, When) such) conn a: ches and ZUres. From Richland County under the auspices of the (ha nthe plecdin q i H ‘ Attorn ‘ efendant and | does not place a burden on int te Hielke, Ryd S Dak te T eal from the District Court of ‘ jae é feu of Commerce of the state of Wash: | and cor Appellant In OD. Mater and’ C._E,| Rainsey County, Hon. C. M. Cuotey,|, Stavdard Ol “Compally, A. corpoe |cuve ‘offe ‘or more ington, ; ; ' ppenens i zs ' : Minot, > iegtneys (fo! ° a plaintiff and appella v3. /erence to others, 4 “At the very time when all far hota a0 al portation | Brace, oF Mints Ne). /altceneys Boule a Braun, defendant and 1e-| that he does so, dc leyistation wa siting: the rey 1 ‘ : ayy From Ward Co | intras yee only as inciden. | George F. Shafer, Attorney Gen- | ca ob tie sou Meese aE : saction fraudu c e Py den Ayricultural € , Pha und e 7 : Jeorge n uf i a m ye ors no’ efe! a Heil f fF, Rana Bo Diehl, Plaintiff and Reo tat to the effective regulation of in- | ¢ George 1.’ Riemestad, As t & Adu D he in claim and delis noe ee Ci Aswell bill ite t 0 Mutusl ii ‘ ‘ sist Attorney General, , of p, Nor ttorney for] eo the re “a jeettain SBild- | : trol ob : 7 i ‘ urance Co. . 01 shecifieally. reser ' womarck, and Robert H. Bosard, a ee ties it ae caeeasin | eee ‘ ound that ‘it alendi Appell: | power to compel th ‘i Dickinson & Johnson, of Minot, at . We a W. Thomp- | i ; | court wast tore le ground tha i toby the 4 lusive : |Spurs, switching or si y torneys for respondents, son, of Devils North Dak pion, that the ial cour ine [ult vires & attack can he a o p i vilabus: sl 3 - fe orneys for fa espond- c i g tha ¢ dings |g b e sovereign authority 1 ‘| it is proper to instruct } suai 1 an cated or to be located whol aa dipeneys for and respond ee ccstendantaerede nly by the sovereign ry te that effects aranee. poll ' te tne fone plate, and nothing in act | Original leer nd that phintiff might not re- | oosixth and seventh an Fentire police limpairs or affects the State of North. Dakota Z i possession thereof in clin | acta to the constit the | insured has concealed or a PREARS Ghic ENO ONE Hariy Suit (aling : : From’ Ward C I ve Jacted t ernments spend a r r 1 ed in writing, or othe pay ‘i ‘ : < ¥ y BY} s for the bete Alien eUdllaes & year. through al : E : ; : le teriny Pack an diveuti wer to require just and reasonable) petitioner, vs. Warden | State of North a. : ment of the dist Siteeaat of eeondm From Burleigh County Agriculture fo ephine Power, ; fs nt Fred Walliams, Ww , Aug. 6—(A)—An program of tarm legislation conten paternalistic regulation of |; returns on ayricuitural will fail to bring about rehabilitation in the United BoP. Yokum, Washington publici on Avriculture | direct proceeding 1:3, kK he continued: to lied eelORy “of | e6l this Insuiranes,-or th t enger et lee Hi rin ot te State Penitentiary, Respond ee ay aie mts vs. Ed. King, and county, Wolfe, d not to nieeyeut en 4 act of the in id F ant a e rs from paying o : nso 5 Ce aera inconsistent | syllabus: (1) The question of the pro: rmed. eemire ereliter' throughout the caunt 5 i It . sd Law in the property be not truly ¥ Syllabus: 1 prop . ‘i curing one’or more creditors i farmers how to develop yreater pro | perriters Tot Uhoustatl stated ‘herein, or in-ctise of any fraud rder of the Inter-)° 7}. ‘The Writ of Habeas Corpus can | of argument of counsel to the jy Opinion of the Court by Chris-| erence tg others. duction of their bankrupt business.) ee Federal Lor (filae swe! by aie inaueed'|" Commiazion. Le invoked only when_ petitioner is | is, add 1 to the sound disere! tianson, Ch. do 1. P.,san insolvent debtor, “The agricultural colleges of the i ‘ind | toucl vy relating: to thi vidence in this case sus-| confined without jurisdiction. of the trial court, and the i Conmy, Young & Burnett country could enormously — inerease iV and | touching any subject tains the findings, conclusions and! 2. In the ense at bar, the court | the trial court with respect the North Dakota, for appellant their yood work if they would i A Be eel ak - daeueen ied orde z Commissioners, | had jurisdiction of the offense and | wi he disturbed except in Lauder wuder, of Wahpeton, | E ‘i other augurate a training cou e 5 sindispen. | eith a i . conclusions, order | of the defendant, hence Habeas Co E seretion, North Dakota, for respondent. tional distribution and 1 ie ‘ . ment of the District Court, | pus does not lie. record in the instant ca: —— Eelproducte of agriculture. y 2 i us one of | The answer in this ¢ ing therefrom that the| Petition for Writ of Habeas Cor- {and held, for reason ted in the F hland Coun “The first step in this movement Mee tral be ine ential features | that the plaintif stats ng of the conneeting line will | pus inion, that there was no abuse Sam plaintiff r A avlleve to vines the iiserioution rial by at common tae cand | ments in proof of le s not be an unreasonable burden upon |” Writ denied. retion on the part of the trial|spondent, vs. North Dakota Wor \. and marketing of agricultural pro- Qo). bm Mads of a elit in the proof of loss pr Dery inte : te paula nor does it take Opinion of the court by Burke, J. court, i ‘ : men’s Compensation Bureau, defend. | ssignment for the ben duction under the control of the} ty. cee te te | oe tee ae which |proverty without due process of law} F. 0. Hellstrom, Es arck,| (2) Where in the trial of a erim-|ant and | f creditors within the purview ihaniedlves, ao tat. “th mendment to i any one of the equal pro-|N, D., attorney for 1 r. inal ease the defen 3 ; : te 19 i tue one ode titution against encroaeh-| had been renioved Geo. F. Shafer, attorne mapas Sibnian: , Ae / who have nothing whatever yynt th v titory. at V ots by before the fire, and there Appeal from the judgment of the Jand John Thorpe, assist ets himself to cro: ‘amina isdiction to entertain an appeal f° Veils County, Hon, UERWIY lind “now nothing what (teegmneing to authorize a verdict| offered in support of alle; ourt of Burleigh County, | gene B | au. andl the “Workmen's. ‘Compen: \Juge. Prom oan of CHLGES uxvioultural production) | "eeneus the urrenee therein of |tions, the defendant was entitled to} Hon. Fred Jansonius, J. for respondent. his credibility i ct to reau, under Section 17, demurrer to the plaintiff ‘ jall twelve juror {have ‘the » submitted to the jury | Affirmed. wn e : ar ‘aws 1919 (Workmen's Ci i ‘ would enjoy the profit which come The Bil of 4 0 : |the same y |Laws 1919 (Workmen's Compen: | plain peals, Philo muekoting end of the farm. | me ne provisions > Bill of | nd the | Opinion of the court by Burke, J. 3 msey Connty Jother witness who fy. For | Act) unless, and until, such ‘Affirmed. ing industry 2 pin) tHe Gob aha n North 3 giv Se ewton, Dullam & Young, Bis-] Stat orth Dakota, plaintiff | the purpose of imp Onnionvot-th “Market control by the — farm uring teint by Jurdi. e jsuch rts, rek, N. D. and Murphy & Toner, | ¢ ent, vs. Mike Pahn, de- | may be made of hi & 1 oH uaiiediiy cut lows 4 d the right; they only se-| not co yo in the instruetio: k Dak., attorneys for | fendant and appellant. atters tending to d for 5 ) own the py cure it in the in which it was {of th to consumers which now are fixed ; ati ppellan ‘ PS . ‘ " . y criminate him, and th e Fi Compen » ground} John O. Hanchett of Valle ity, Sey eect ew re Fixed La matter of right before, and in doing | Ap r strict Court hafer, Attorney General,| 1. Where the sufficiency of the |latitude of such examination is with-! that the injury was self-inilicted, or | attorney for respondent y the changed condition that would be — brought about by transferring con trol of marketing t» the producers would grow a relationship between urmers and consumers that would ch that ideal Since lV To the First 50 rity |{| A Mighty Sale! Mighty Values! condition is brought Set Yo F Mock! about there can be no permanent Set Your Alarm Clock! i Fargo | mortgage, nim deed, i ‘ imity in} pa provision, eyeaitos lof the ins cl Held, |the transaction ed ton, tural erie ane. ee est agricul Get Here Early For This Special | * farming industry wil eantinue.” 7 LIMIT — 10 yds. to Customer, d 2 PACKED FORCE PAYMENT M U Ss L | N i Pesitively crowded, and jammed OF HALL LEVY mar NEW MARKDOWNS! BIGGER SAVINGS! NEW LOW PRICE LEVELS. gy Tn’ Sal’ nto ‘tune 10c Positively the greatest store-wide clearance ever attempted in Bis- Ea ebavesinnthenWondentuy Values § . rs A é _ we cffered. Buyers from North, Orderg Issued to Refuse Mill marck or Burleigh county. We've cut still deeper into our costs to as- fa Kast, South, and West, came, Tax Payments Until Hail sure the last two days—Friday and Saturday—winding up this mon- 2 purchased and left leaded down Levy Is Settled ster sale in whirlwind style. Be sure and attend tomorrow or Satur- aa aaa WPRdaiitigne: ssaucd ,tov county aut : day. ~and—don’t forget—COME EARLY. bse m satisfaction. More bargains tc- ditors at ng of the state tax f i BARNEY’S SALES The «i vere issued fol- “e g f lowing. requests by rection as to procedure in view of a recent decision by the state supreme court holding that hail insurance does not constitute a 1 to rtgages issued befo’ 1 . Thoreson, state tax com missioner, today said lift dee in valuation of property might ion. bor would be ordered only in specific instances ‘The board will meet August establigh the stzyeird value per a for farm land “tn each of the 5% countiés in the state. Armour Veribest ’ SpeipeenenniR Children’s All 50c and 75c 86 inch Choice of 35 All. $1.25, $1.50, $1.75 Bests Statehouse 67e Dresses Straw Percale j Boys’ 2-Pant Ladies’ Silk Base, ‘Armour’ Creamgiies’ “‘Verl’ ‘best” ’ (40 only) Hats 25e value Suits Hose ‘ORGANDY kitten ball team made a grand and| Values to $1.25 Now Now Per Yard i Values to $15.00 all new colors, pair glorious start in the game when they : defeated the Capitol team last night q 49 19 ‘ on the William Moore grounds in . Cc Cc Cc fh c their first game. The score was 11 ; Fane, gai pale airet game, esc 8 Silks, Crepes, Ging- Twenty men from Armours were ' hams, ete. : LADIES’ out. DRESSES. Threb teams have been organized | y : : ‘ Last call.. 1.39 hse ae wa aa AL all 3 of SHOES! SHOES! SHOES! SHOES! A erent 1.38 lien Blcowers, the N8it. 2 eine 2 For Men, Women, Boys, Girls, Children and Infants, Every imaginable style. Every wanted last. Priiaiccgtaae ep mesrusue Every needed width. Priced at:cost and Jess. Buy a year’s supply now, > H 49 Didies’ mareorizel 6S Supreme Court f Decisions sere > Heavy Denim ig 160 PATRS $2, $3, $4, $5 LADIES 89 85 Pairs—$1.50, $1.75, $2.00 Hoe State ‘of "North ‘Dakota ex rel Hh ‘ WHITE SPORT OXFORDS Cc. Children’s Sandal-Oxfords Children’s $1.00 K. Craig, Plaintiff and Appellant, | all sizes i j ROMPERS vs, North Dakota Workmen’s Com: - Aa pean Ce $1.25 4 ; Syllabus: Certiorari will not lie to review a finding of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau as to a matter Men’s ; sans - Ladies’ $3, $3.50, $4 Ladies’ $8.09 Suede E q 75 Pairs of fact’ within, and not touching, its . Shoes ho | Pumps a Patent Twc-Tone Ladies’ Shoes Byer Cn jurisdiction. ales t Children’s : cr ! : P ‘ Bonen Ganty Hon, Pred Sateonte Rivued Hose... ; Oxfords Oxfords | Oxfords { Oxfords, or Oxfords Thread ..... 38 Tose, Opinion of the Court | 4 Values to $5.00 Sandals Pumps Values to $4.00 : a eho, ot iBsmarek, Attor- LADIES’ $2.95 oe a $3.45 | | $1.95 $4.95 Scot Cameron, of Bismarck, Attor- : : : ney for Respondents. : Light-weight From Stutsman County f UNIONS A. L. Kavely, Plaintiff and’ Re- 50. sult spondent, vs. A. F. Klenk, et al, De- : ‘ fendants. A. F. Klenk, Defendant } $24.85 and Appellant. . . , ‘ Syllabus: 1. Where, in a sale of 122 Third 1 122 Third a specific goods, there is no reserva- : ] 3 h tign of title ay poasgasion is un- Opposite _ Opposite . ni en e vende, Hm : a y ; aegis fitle to the property passes to the a P d : : Post | JM Men’s Silk Hose, ice ; a vendee ‘at the time oF phe conbract of : bed BA Bik is sale, under Rule 1, Sec. 19, Chap. 202 J ‘ : . L. $917, the Uniform Sales Act, q ° r . fd a Ghattel mortgage, executed by ! BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA the veddor subsequent to such con- || tract of sale is wholly abortive. — 2, Fer. reasons stated in the opin-~ ion, it is held that’there isno evi- dence on which to base a finding bisied