Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1855-08-31

up where il now stands for a Ware
House, and that they were partners
in the Storing & Commission business.
that afterwards they conceived the
notion Of making a mill out oft. But
before the mill was finisned. one Of the
Collins conveyed bis undivided inter.
est to Roberts. and afterwards Rob-
erts persuaded r. Tyner TO buy out
the other Collins interest, and that
they would carry on the milling bust.
ness in partnership. Tyner according
y did so and obtained Collins deed for
one half the mill. and paid one half Of
all the expenses of fitting the mill up,
and that Tyner a Roberts carried on
the milling business up to the time Of
the assignment 10 the plaintiffs. IN
partnership. There was some evil
dence going to show that the mill was
insured as Tyners' d Roberts. But
Tyner himself, who was witness in
the case could not say that there was
ever any thing said by either him
self or Roberts, whether the mill sho'd
be partnership property or each one
hold his seperaie interest.
II we are allowed to Judge OF nice
questions Of law and evidence, we
would say, that from the whole Of the
evidence their was very nice ques.
ton raised. which was very ably ar
gued by counsel. and the court deci-
ded very briefly. that the property was
not partnership, but joint property.
and that the title to one undivided
half was in the plaintiffs. The defs
attorney appeals. were Il not for fear
Of prejudicing the case In the higher
court. and discouraging the able at
torney Tor the def. In the prosecution.
Of his appeal. would give an opinion
that the court was right--but with
hold. 1t is my duty Dear People. to
report impar'ially, and not give one
party an undue advantage over the
other, by giving my opinion Of the law
Of the case.
Greensburgh " Brookville Turn.
pike Company, vs. Robert Stops
THIS Is an action to enforce payment Of
stock subscription. A case similar to
the one reported at the April Term.
against McCarty and Adair. fexcept
as to the result. judgement in this
case for plaintiff. Both cases submit
ted to the Courts, one Common Pleas,
and the other Circuit. The difference
Is between the Courls--and there is a
di6srsnce. too-but which way /
wouldn't say for the world--for IL
would contempt Of court. one way or
the other, for which ! might have TO
answer under the pains and penalties.
Of tie Barnd House-and IL Is with
me like the Irishman good Lord-good
Devil. Both cases appealed to higher
court.
Sarah Roberts. Us. VIM. McCarty.
Petition for Dover In near 5000 acres
of land in this county. formerly owned
by Roberts Of Cincinnati. Judgement
for petition. case taken up to Supreme
Court
Springfield Township Of Franklin
County. ps. Auditor d. Treasurer of
Franklin County.
This is one Of series Of suits or APP
plication for injunction commenced by
several townships in this county. TO
enjoin school funds in the hands Of
the Auditor and Treasurer. until the
Supreme Court takes another whack
at the school law. The people have
notion to have something to say about
how their school funds shall be dispss-
ed of-Mafs all. Injunction granted.
Case taken up.
State Of Indiana, ps. John Bright.
Forgery. would like. Dear People,
to report this case in full, but from
the fact that the Jury could not agree
and were discharged without ver-
diet. and that the case will have to be
tried again, it would not. perhaps, be
prudent to give all the evidence and
circumstances of the case.