|
<br />
<br />[VOL,
<br />
<br />court of the city
<br />::ttion or the city
<br />driving, He was
<br />notice of appeal,
<br />uly approved, all
<br />;eeHon 18-203, R.
<br />Jt filed in the dis-
<br />
<br />:listrict cow't. de-
<br />.'omp1aint on the
<br />failed to prepare
<br />- the district court
<br />motion \vas sus-
<br />'he State has ap-
<br />judgment of the
<br />
<br />, that the magis-
<br />" such transcript
<br />ct. no burden is
<br />it being the man-
<br />m this function.
<br />ling appeals, the
<br />of a transcript in
<br />time. It simply
<br />The statute was
<br />:l be Ihe same as
<br />ith a statute re-
<br />-ithin a specified
<br />)arty at fault, his
<br />'>ear \'. State, 149
<br />S~:J.te, 163 Neb.
<br />-" defendant had
<br />)f the completion
<br />f the ptlHee mag-
<br />, of a mandatory
<br />f Jurisdiction and
<br />chi to be heard,
<br />
<br />I
<br />'--
<br />
<br />!O~
<br />
<br />VeL.
<br />
<br />JA..l\fUARY TEPJJ:~ 1:959
<br />
<br />1U',)1
<br />..I,.UV_J
<br />
<br />Cantenson v. weinriu
<br />
<br />See, Anderson v, State, SUDTa: Liliehorn v, Fvfli'- 178 .Neb.
<br />532, 134 N, W, 2d 230: . '. . , - .
<br />To rule o~~erv\."isa would mea...~ that defendant's- ap...
<br />peal had failed and that the judgment of the police
<br />court was final, Certainly, even if the district court
<br />was warranted in dismissing the .;"'"leal, it was totally
<br />lacking in 'grounds for a disrr,ic:'! vi .he COJ.n,r..-!Ioi,l1t, .
<br />Defendant conten~3 that t>: !e1ay in - filing _ t.;e - ~*i~
<br />script on appeal deprived him of his right to a speedy trial.
<br />We do not agree. Defendant might roadilyhave brought
<br />about an earlier filing of the tr'anscript had he been
<br />sufficiently com:emed to take the necessary stepS to
<br />l~......:__ ~-l.. _1..___"- ....-. _ -. 1 .... ~. '" ..,~
<br />UIUl~ H auuut, :USa, ne nas nau nlS Clay In court 1n tile
<br />first instance and no complaint is registered about undue
<br />delay of hearing in the police court.
<br />The judgment of the district court is reversed and
<br />the cause remanded,
<br />
<br />REVERSED AND REMANDED.
<br />
<br />LAUREX lVI. CARSTENSON, APPELLANT, V, GEORGE E.
<br />\VEINRICH ET AL., APPELLEES.
<br />164 N. W, 2d 656
<br />
<br />Filed Februal')' 7, 1969. No, 368>lS,
<br />
<br />Ad~.r"" Pouea.ion. The claim of hUe to land by adverse poa_
<br />se3sioil mUst he proved by actuaL. open~ -exclusive, and eontinu..
<br />aus pos,seSSlun unde.r 3. claim of ownership for the statutorJ'
<br />p@ri-od of 10 :rE'al'S.
<br />Th~ lJouf,t8sio'1 is sufficient if the land is used eoo4
<br />tinuously for the- purpose to which it may be in its nature
<br />adapted.
<br />
<br />Appeal from the district court for Hall County:
<br />DONAUJ H, WEAVER, Judge. Affinned.
<br />
<br />Chambers, Holland, Dudgeon & Beam, for appellant.
<br />
<br />Luebs. Tracy & Huebner, Cunningham & Blackbum,
<br />and Harold S. Salter, for appellees.
<br />
<br />L
<br />
<br />L
<br />
<br />--1
<br />
|