Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1852-03-18
INDIANA STATE SENTINEL.
Occasions Of the Supreme Court Of indiana.
RrrOrrED TOR THE STATE SENTINEL BY L. BOLLi
NOVEMBER TERM, 1851.

Michigan Central Railroad Company Northern
Indiana Railroad Company. On Appeal.
The Presldent Judge of the Laporte Circuit Court,
at ms chambers, in vacation granted an nterlocutory
decree the 18th day of August, 1851. On the 3Oh
Of August appeal was taken TO the Supreme Court
A motion made dismiss this appeal, the
ground that the does authorize such APP
peal The statute declares that appeals TO the Supreme
Court shall be allowed be taken from any inteOcu
tory order decree Of any circuit probate court in
this State Sci and requires that the appeal shall be Ia
ken at the time when such order decree is made.
Judge SMITH held,
/. That the order in this is nterlocutory de-
Of the crcuit although it made by SIN
gle jadge, in vacation, for the bill paying such order
be addressed the court; it becomes part oil ITS
record enforced by its authority that such orders
were granted in the English courts both in equity and
common law, by single Judge, IN vacation, and seem
have been acquesced in, and to have the same effect
as il made by the court Ia term. Eden on ln., p SS'
Burr, 2570; Taunt., a; Burr, 2o7O; D b. and
AID, 2I7; 7 Eng. c. L. R., 70.
q That although the statute requires the appeal to
be taken at the time the injunction granted yet courts
have always construed such phrase to mean sucn rea
sonas time as may be necessary to do the act required
g. That the statute in authorizing appeals IRON any
order or Decree embraced In its provisions those maue
in vacation, as well in term, for the remedy granted
by the appeal being that injury might be sustained
by improvdent oppressive act oil an inferior
court, il would be unreasonable TO suppose that the
Legislature believed there no danger OF error or
oppression from single Judge. the associate Judges
when acting separately in vacation
A. That the words ''the court" and ''the Judge, or
Judges" frequently used in statutes synony
nous.
s. That the insuficency of the appeal bond, and its
not being filed in time, matters on which the APP
pellses may be heard motion to dismiss the appeal
as the appeal was granted without notice to them.
Motion overrued.
Harper U.s. Delp Appeal from the Parke Circuit
Court.
Harper brought an action for SANDER against DelP
The declaration contained three counts each oil which
specially demurred and the derGurrers sustained
The plaintiff lived in the neighborhood Of the defend
ant, young lately married, and had not by
his wife any children, and the only young married
man in that neighborhood Andrew Scott had black
smith shop between the defendants house and the house
of Sarah Glove, and person going from the house oil
the latter, by way Of the shop to the house OF
Harperss farm the right, Martin being the iather oil
the plaintiff.
The first count detailed these facts, and contained
10 show that the sanderous words where spo-
ken Of and eoncering the plaintiff, at, &C., &c. The
words spoken by the defendant stated as follows
90 That his Rial (meaning Eral Delp, the delen-
dans SOM the week before had stad at Sarah Cloves
(meaning the Sarah before mentOned) AMI on the way
home (meaning the way from the house OF the said
Sarah Glove the house OF the deendant) he (mean-
ing said Eral) saw young ravishng He
(meaning said Eral) by Scotts shop, and left ar
rn Harpers farm the night, (meanng thereby that
said Eria in going from said Sarahs, as aforesaid to
the defendants house. had gone by said blacksmith shop
said Scott, and had ethe residence OF said Martin
Harper the plaintiff father his said EraPs, right j
sed that between the shop and John Summers the act
place. (meanng thereby that the crime OF bestality
and buggery with COW had been committed between
SAID blacksmith shop and the residence OF said John
Summers y that this was young married man, and his
vile had no children and did like for any and that 1t
early in the morning that could not have
got far from home" Thereby meaning, &C., and that
the persons to whom the words spoken and pub
hshed did understand, sc.
The second count similar the first. and the third
contained sets of words as follows:
lSt He he nj wa a a
cow"
2nd. " Rial (meaning &C., young man (mean-
ing the plaintiff ravishing a
3rd Rial (meanlng, &c.) saw him (meanIng the
piaintif) ravishing cow" William Harper (the
plaintiff meanng) was caught by my son Rial IN the act
Of ravishing a cow"
lst That where there any ambiguity in the words laid,
in regard the person sandere there must be intro
ductoy showing that the plaintiff was the per-
aimed at Bustrodes Rep. 225 Gro. Charles, 42O
Comyn's Rep 26T; that the coIoquium in this Il
sufficient for IL contains averment that the words
spoken Of the plaintiff and such statement OF facts
TO snow that the words spoken OF him.
2nd That the word ravishing" ordinarily means the
having sexual carna knowledge that Is defined TO
mean " to violate by force, "to debauch, to dehle
A." compelling submit to carnal intercourse" &c.
3rd That the first class sets OF words In the third
count actOnabe themselves for the usual sig
MITIGATION of the word " foul is unclean filthy, dirty
and the phrase 90 to fall foul is common one, mean
inc 10 run against :" that the word had been used
y and understood by the hearers there should
have been special avermen to that effect. y Bingh.
ll9: ii Munson and Welsby, ESQ., 10 H. l59, Blackf
al.
4th That the second set of words are Objectionable
because they do show with sufficient certainty that
the plaintiff the person referred by the defendant
That the words young man " and - " do not
point the plaintiff more than to any other Bot wheth
this uncertainty might have been remedied bJ an aver
snent is not decided.
9Th That the word him in the third Of words,
sufficiently demonstrates the person, without special
inducement support the innuendoes. Croke's ElIz
SCI and that formal colioquium necessary
support the Of words in which the plaintiffs name
is mentioned. Starkie on SANDER 3S3, 3S4.
Judgment reversed.
Brewer 1s. Thorp. Error to the Randolph Circuit
Court
This a bill in Chancery to obtain specific per-
formance II is alledged in the bill that the defendant
had sold to his Of land for which he
execute deed. when requested or before the 18th
day Of December, 1916; that his said had paid for
said land except the of fifty dalars and three
aonths labor and afterwards the 10th day Of Decem
ber 1896 he had assigned the title bond to the complain
ant II is also alleged that the said had perormed
and half months of his labor but had been hin
dred from performing the balance that the complain
ant had rendered ST. to the defendant and demanded
deed, which be refused to execute.
Judge SMITH held
That this bill was rightly dismissed upon the COM
plaiRant refusing amend because shows that the
vendee had performed certain amount Of labor he
perform, and does not alledge that the Perfor
nance OF it was prevented by the vendor
Decree affirmed.
HeastOn rs. CoIgrove. Error to the Randolph Cir
cult Court.
By an article Of agreement Heaston engaged to fur
aish double cardng machine at, &C., and Colgrove
agreed TO furnish similar thea in his possession
both OF which to be placed in certain building
and run upon certain terms. Neither performed his
agreement. Colgrove sued Heaston and obtained