Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 1 No. 6 (1924).pdf/2



'''State ex relrel. [sic] Herbranson v. Vesperman,''' et al.

The municipal auditorium of the City of Bismarck was paid for out of public funds and has been commonly used for public meetings upon payment of the rentals prescribed by the board of city commissioners. Relator, a resident and taxpayer of the city, tendered the proper rental charge and demanded the use of the building for a public lecture. Such use was refused because the commissioners were informed that the meeting was calculated to create and arouse religious and racial prejudice, ill will and strife, and would prove inimical to the good will, harmony and good order existing in the city. Relator sought by mandamus to compel the rental on the theory that the auditorium is a public utility. HELD: That the city commissioners have a discretion as to whether and on what terms and for what purposes the building shall be rented, which will not be controlled by mandamus, and that the building is not a public utility.

'''State ex relrel. [sic] Solberg v. Spicher, As Sheriff,''' et al.

The district court, sitting as a juvenile court, found a minor delinquent and committed her to the State Training School. There was no finding that the parents are unfit or improper guardians or are unable or unwilling to care for, protect, educate or discipline the child or that it is for the best interests of the child that it be taken from the custody of its parents. On application for a writ of habeas corpus it appeared that the notice of final hearing was not served upon either of the parents, and upon such hearing only the child and mother appeared. HELD: That the law contemplates notice to both parents and an opportunity to be heard before the juvenile commissioner and also before the district court upon the report and recommendations of the commissioner. HELD further that before a juvenile court may commit a child to the state training school it must be found that the child is delinquent, and that the parents, guardian or custodian are unfit or improper guardians, or are unwilling to care for, protect, educate or discipline the child, and that it is for the interest of the child and the people of the state that the child be taken from the custody of its parents, custodian or guardian.

Farmers State Bank v. Bowles, et al.

This is a case of first impression. One of the defendants executed a chattel mortgage upon horses, cattle and machinery therein described, with a covenant that he was in possesionpossession [sic] of such property. After maturity of the debt secured, possession of the property was demanded and refused. This action is in conversion. There was no evidence showing that the defendant ever possessed the property described in the mortgage, or that the property ever existed. Plaintiff’s case was rested on