Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1852-01-15


conveyed to Matlock The Court below entered a de-
cree directing the land conveyed Matock to be sold
to be applied the payment of Lewiss debt, after the
payment Of trhGt lrGs due to MGticck
This decree sough TO be set aside by Lewis on
the ground that the Court below erred IN admitting EVIL
dence conradictng the records &c. OF the judgments
in favor Aailock, which records showed they were
satisfied-in full in lS4l.
Judge SMITH heidi
That the evidence was correctly admitted as it does
not IN any way contradict the receipts but merely shows
the consideration for which they were executed.
R5shire Is. Cine. Error to tie Elkhart Circuit
Court.
contained TWO counts the first charging The speaking OF
words bv Abshire the defendant importing that ne had
Committed fornication with the plaintiff and the second
alleging that the defendant had spoken these WORDS;
Sarah Jane (meaning the Planiii) told me (he de-
fendant) that her brothers had using words importing
! carnal intercourse % with her.
! The defendant pleaded the general issue, and Two
rleas 10 count the first oil which alleged that
the pIantif had intercourse with her broth
s,s beore lie speakinr of The words and the second
averred that plaintiff did tell the defendant that her
brothers had sexual and Illicit intercourse with her.
This last plea demurred TO, ard the demurrer su
tanned Trial and verdict and judgment Tor The plaintiff
below. The errors assigned will be learned IRON the
questions decided.
Judge SMITH held,
That the words charged in the second count, with
I the ACCOMPANYING averments are actionabe bscause
they impnle the crime Of orncation 10 iemaie which
are actionable by the rrovisio. OF the k D, p 05l.
This case differs from that reported an the IND H. 5zZ
because in that case the words spoken oil male
2 That il is not necessary thai the words should
amount direct e6irnsalire charge, but they are
was guilty Of the crime imputed, 1t Is sufficient.
/ Blackr 453.
/ 3 That the demurrer to The second plea to the Sc
cond counf was correctly sustained, because II would
be no Justification to prove that plaintiff had spoken
the words Jest and, the other hand, II the defend
wished prove that he spoke the words on Jus
liable occasion without malice lie could have done so un
der the general issue. Blackf- %.
L. That the court below properly refused the defend
ant leave 10 introduce evidence 81 the truth oil the
words charged in the first count for the purpose Of
butng the inference of malice because 1t Is we'll set
tied that such evidence admissible for that pu
pose, under the general issue. Biaeki 100
s. But that the Court below erred in excluding proof
that the plaintiff had been guilty of sexual intercourse
with her brothers. for such evidence was admissible I'M
der the plea Of justification to the second count
Judgment rsed
! Williams Besel. Appeal from the Lagrange
Circuit Court.
The Court below set aside reeognizance Of special
bail which entered as follows:
% Samuel p. Williams rs. Edward Wright. Com es
now Peter Beisel and acknowledges himself repeven
bail and security for the payment of The above Judgment
the expiration of the time allowed by law for the
/ STAY Of execution Peter Beisei ."
This entry i entitled in IKE manner as the ludg-
ment but was not made Immediately under the ude-
ment the order book there being several intervening
entries.
J. That although in the above entry. reference is
made the interest and costs accrued and accrung,
is the case in the form prescribed by the statute yet
such interest and incudcd in the Judgment it
Is Sufficient in substance.
I 3 That as the motion to aside the recognzance
made until after the time. for OF execution,
had expired, the fact that the entry not made
Immediately under the judgment, alnrds sufficient
reason for setting aside. The statute to the place
where the entry is to he made is only directory 10 the
clerk and does not make the recognizance void n not
flv Ill x,-o1 in fhaf rffc
/ 3. That perhaps If the motion had been made at n
scasonahe time TO have the entry aside altered,
/ it might have been entertained.
Judgment reversed.
! john Poylan rs. Whitney and Faulkner. Error TO
/ the Carr, II Circuit Court.
| This vas an action Of debt against John Boylan,
brought upon judgment against John and Samuel Boy
/ lam rendered in the State OF New York.
The defer dant pleaded that he resident Of Indi-
the time the judgment obtained; that he had
not been n New York ssrSSd with process and had
il stown by the record that b. F HAYWOOD had ap-
peared rs attorneys when the defendant offered to prove
that b. + Hawoid had appeared as attorney ~ the
case, at the request of Samuel Boyan, who had been
his (thc deendant's) partner 10 the business out ol
which ts suit and who authorized to settle
up; and IL he (the defendant) from the commence
ment TO the close Of the suit in New York. had been
resident o the State Of Indiana and had not been in the
State of New York. This evidence was excluded by
the court below, and Judgment given for the plain
tifs.
Judge SMITH held
l. That in actions upon judgments rendered in anotl-
State it has been settled that defendant may show
3eh0rs the record that he not within the urisdc-
ton Of the court, and that attorney Nho undertook
to appear for him had authority 10 do so. How.
L. S. r., 1863, and recent decisions Of this court.
2. That whether partner has authority to employ
attorneys for the firm, in an action against the firm
need not be decided, the evidence of partnership
in this case conclusive.
Judgment reversed.
The State rs. Armstrong. Error to the Tippecanoc
Circuit Court.
This ndict nent which agaius, the defendant for
suffering his horse TO he public highway, was
qnashed IN the court below, because the termu of the
highway were not sfated.
| Judge SMITH held
That the termin Of the highway need not be stated
State rs. Burgilt, Ind. Rep, $40.
Judgment reversed.
Cont.
West brought action Of repevn against Ashhy for
40 arrels OF -four. The pleas the general Issue
prope ~ in thr defendants property in Edmund Hale
property in William Bradley. Trial, verdict, and judg
mont for The plaintiff
| The acs ere as follows:
William Bradley, by written contract, agreed TO
manufacture 600 barrels Of flour for West & CO. from
wheat % he delivered him 10y them. The wheat
delivered and the -four in manufactured out
warehouse. who gave him warehouse receipts for H.
These receipts Bradley transferred to Edmund Hale,
secure loan.
West on the trial offered to prove the declarations
OF Bradey who had said when h, received the wheat
that it Vests; and when he tipped the -four that
i was Vests -four THIS evidence objected 10, bat
the objection overruled.
Judge BLACKBOARD held.
That it is general rule that declarao-s made by
third porson, under oath are not admissible in Vi
dence Il at the issue in this whether the -four
was The plaintiffs property, and that issue was 10 be
proved Independently Of the declarations of the assigor