Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1847-06-10

this whether the devise lands Of charged
The lands liable 10 dover Rerersed
Smih-er-PGrfe. EHor 10 The Davies c. c. BLACK
FoRDJ
United States the certificate Of his declaration Of intention
OF becoming such citizen was 0eitd 10 because the party
declaring his intention has allegiance to the
queen of Gea Britain and Ireland does not give the
VI the queen viz; Victoria.
Held that the meaning declaration is the same
Of the que had been inserted The parry by
declaring his intention 10 his allegiance and fidelity
every foreign Prince Poentaie State, and Sovereignty
whatever, aud particularly 10 the Of Great Britain
and Ireland complied substantially with the Of
gTess on the subject Reversed.
STATE OdeH Error TO the Davies C. C. SMrrH. j.
The only judicial powers possessed by justices Of the
peace in this Stale, hoe c0nfeTed by the Statute
ce'ning their powers aud duties.
As consevaors peace their respective countless
they may sppTehend breakers the require Of
them recognzsnces keep default Of such Tecogni
may commit the offenders; but such
they have aulhoy to Try AID punish for Offences
involved
The % section Of the 55h chap Rev. Stat Of 1913 au-
thoizes requires justice complaint made oath,
view without complaint 10 issue hs warrant and cause
any person charged with the commission Of any crime
breach Of the law be arrested aud brought before himself
other justice Of the peace Of county,
such charge complaint and be fulher dealt with
according 20 law; but the Statute does not Directly
horize The of fine unless coplant be made in
whiting under OATH may be doubted whether in the absence
OF such complaint he should proceed further than 10 require
bail under the general given to him eOnsevator
of the peace.
Ia the present it alleged in Indictment that
the justice exceeded his jurisdiction by rendering judgment
for fine assessed by him for The commission Of assault
and battery, view, without complaint and without proof
but Held that though il the justice exceeded his jurisdiction
in rendering judgment under such circumstances, any
tempt to enforce il by execution otherwise would have
been tTespass; the indictment does not charge
cious Nifu design the part Of the defendant act
oppressivey under Of his Office the proceedings
forth, the facts alleged such cTimi-
nal prosecution under the Statute for oPpressin Affirmed
Berry at al 9. Ballard. From the Madison c. C. PER-
KINs, J.
Petition by judgment under 1885,
against hes tenants &c. for sale Of the real estate Of the
deceasedis regarded proceeding at law not in equity
The petition need be cet.n than sciTe dcias,
and need not that the judgment is unpaid.
When the judgment is against nonresdents by default,
the record should show that atiavi cnesicence
made before publication.
judgment under like circumstances against an infant
should show that TO him the petition proved.
When the judgment has been revived against tie admins
tratoI, and execution issued returned goods
necessary that the judgment should be revived aud execution
issued against the administrator de bOns nOn before pro-
ceedng by petition can be had.
The claim of creditor not fled within year in the
clerks Office IS not barred but postponed, as 10 priority Of
Webster a. The state. Error the Wayne c. C. Opinion
by BLACKBOARD, J.
An for gaming should contain description
of the game Played that it with cards. dice &c
older that the defendant may be appzed the particular
charge which he is required The Of the
game need not, however, be stated. Reversed.
WEDSE.DAY, June 2nd.
Cheesbro Campbell and others. Error the Huntington
/ c. &. Opinion By SMITH, j.
In England authorize The proof Of exhibits riUa
hearing order for that purpose be obtained
aud due notice must be served upon the opposite party
The rule appears have been adopted the Of
this country.
In case, the defendant having received verbal notice
just before the was set down for hearing that he
would make such proof and objection having been made
its introduction the time, the complainant must be
dered having waived his objection the Of ue
guarty or want of notice. If In reduction Of such
Testimony took the complainant by surprise, he should have
objected TO then 1t 10 do after
has been heard med
kley the Stale Error from the Carroll c. c. Opinion
by PERKINS j.
1 An indictment charging joint winning is not sustained
by proof of a several winning.
defendant may convicted Of gaming, though another
person furnishes the money staked. ReraSei
Two other between the parties reversed
| on the ground.