Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (1925).pdf/2

2

State Ex Rel Neville v. Overby, as Sheriff: Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Certain minors were arrested on a charge of grand larceny, given a preliminary examination before a police magistrate and bound over to the district court. In district court they were arraigned, pleaded guilty and committed to the state training school. The parents were present in both the police and district courts and the minors were at all times represented by an attorney. A writ of habeas corpus was petitioned for on the ground that the chief of police and police magistrate at the time of the preliminary examination knew the defendants to be under eighteen years of age, and that the state’s attorney and judge of the district court were aware of the facts and that all of the proceedings should have been had in juvenile court. No issue was made in either court, as to the age of defendant. HELD: The jurisdiction of the juvenile court is cumulative as to all law, except as administered in justice and police courts. The district court has jurisdiction of all criminal offences and exclusive original jurisdiction over all felonies and persons charged therewith. A delinquent child may be prosecuted according to the laws covering the commission of crime. It is the duty of an officer making an arrest of a child under eighteen years of age to give the same in to the care of a juvenile officer, and of the justice of the peace or police magistrate issuing a warrant for the commission of crime to make an order giving the care and custody of a child under eighteen years of age to a juvenile officer. If there is doubt about the age, this should first be determined by the justice or police magistrate, and if found under the age of eighteen years further proceedings should be suspended. The district court had jurisdiction here and relief is denied.

Michelsen v. North American National Insurance Company: Plaintiff was in possession of a section of school land, as assignee of a lease. On this land were three buildings, a house, a barn and a granary, owned by the plaintiff. He gave a chattel mortgage of the buildings, and certain live stock, to a bank, which transferred the indebtedness, and security, to another. After giving the mortgage, plaintiff made application for insurance upon the buildings, through the local agent of the defendant company, who was also cashier of the bank which took the chattel mortgage. The agent at the time knew the character of the plaintiff's interest in the land upon which the buildings were situated. The policy of insurance contained a loss payable clause in favor of the mortgagee and stipulated that unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed thereon, or added thereto, the policy should be void if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple. It was argued that under the facts the policy was void. HELD: That the application was transmitted by the cashier of the bank for the