The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-29
SUPREME CoURT-JAN. q.

CRIMINAL NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF COURT.
1896. William Conover vs., the State Ma
rIOn G. G.
Howk, J.-Appellant pleaded guilty to an in
dictment charging both larceny and embezzle-
ment, and arterward upon affidavit filed, asked
leave TO withdraw his plea. The court heard
evidence in regard to the matters of fact en-
braced in the motion. and, while the evidence
was conflicting, 1t cannot be SAID that the court
draw the plea. (54 Ind, ABB Judgment af-
irmed.
CRIMINAL NATURALIZATION
- 1882, Charles A. DANTE ct al. VS.. the State
Elliott J.-where two counts of an indict
ment charge an otfense against Two persons
jointly and the third count against one only of
the parties, motion to quash for msjoinder of
parties is properly overruled. (32 Iud, 62.) tits
discretionary with the trial court TO
compel election between counts, and it
that the appellate court Will Interfere.
40 Ind. 81; az i'd, 1856; 80 id, 1O5). A
confession Of guilt In open court, in the presence
conviction. (54 Ind AL; SO i'd, 406; 90 i'd, 3d.
Judgment affirmed.
1855. Enoch Burgett vs. John Boutwell,, Nor
gan c. e.
Best, ca rehearing will not be granted FOR
the purpose of permitting omission in the
record to be supplied by the clerk. But even il
the omission complained of in this were
supplied it would not aid the appellee, because
there is no evidence of an unlawful and forcible
detention Petition overruled.
PARENT AND OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
9,4lS. Dennis Vaughn VS.. Robert McGrath
TippecanOe c. &.
Woods, C. J.-Appeiant alleged in his com
plaint that in order to avoid "a threatened suit
he and his wife conveyed property to their
daughter, then five years old, for the purpose of
preserving said property in the family; that he
had caused the deed to be recorded, but had
never delivered it to the grantee; that
he had expended large sums OF money
in educating his daughter; that he was a poor
man, and all his means were invested In said
property and in the improvements which he had
made upon IL since the conveyance named, and
that the guardian of the grantee asserting
title in her by virtue OF the deed. These facts
show good cause OF action to have the deed de-
olared void and to quiet the title. Where the
grantee is a minor and the conveyance is abso-
lutte and beneficial, his acceptance will be pre-
suine1, but this presumption yields to the facts
when established. q Nash, Il. p, 29l; l | Ind.
90; 6i i'd, 80; 40 N. Y, 1860 But the facts al
legged did rot euttle him to II sale of the prop
erty and an application of the proceeds in tue re-
payment OF his expenditures. The proper pro-
ceeding wonld be to establish his claim and re-
quire the guardian to pay 1t, and upon his re-
fusal TO do proceedings might perhaps be
taken to sell the wards property, If necessary,
for that purpose. Judgment reversed.
The following cases were also decided:
Thomas Fowler vs., the State. Henry c. c.
Affirmed. Elliott, j.
Nicholas Beard vs. Jacob Hand. Harrison c.
c. Affirmed. Black, c.
TAD Fowler vs.. John W. Hobbs. Marion s. c.
Reversed. Best, G..
John Stock well VS., the State. Monroe c. c.
Affirmed. Nulack j.
Alpheus Burke vs.. James Pinnell. Boone C. C.
Reversed, Morris, c.
James McWnnney va. James Briggs Marion
s. G. Affirmed. Franklin, c.
Allen Thorp vs. John w. Parker. Hendricks
G. &. Reversed BickneIl, c.
Nathaniel Hogg vs. James NJ link. LapOrte
G. O. Reversed. Black, @.