The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-29
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in tie Various Courts of
Record Yesterday.
Full Abstract of the Opinions Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.
Supreme Court-May 2S.


IDEM COMMUNICATIONS ORALLY GIVEN.
c. G.
Hammond, J.-Appellant was indicted for
murder The name of the deceased was given
In the first count as John Meyer and in the sec
Ond count as John Meyers In the evidence it
was shown to be John Meyer. These different
snelllngs must be regarded as idem souans, and
do not show variance. Is Ind, 10; 90 i'd, 444;
% i'd, 476; Wharf Grim. Law, sec. 597; Bishop
Grim Pro-, sec. 68Sl AT the proper time appel
liant requested the court to charge the jury in
writing. After the jury had deliberaJed for
twenty -four hours they requested the court to
read them certain sections of the statute relat
ing 10 Ielonles ana the punishment thereof. ana
this the court did over appellants objection.
when the request to instruct in writing is made
the whole charge pust be in writing, and it is
error Tor the court to give any oral instruction
In extension, explanation or modification of the
written charges. It is a partys right
TO have the charge in writing, the In
structions numbered and signed by the
judge. (34 Ind, 399; 80 i'd, 1877 81 i'd, 4S2; 90
ID, 23SJ The request is not compiled with by
reading from the statutes or from other law
books. Such extracts must be copied into the
written charge. The request of the jury to have
certain sections of the statute read to them was
in effect asking for further Instructions These
should have been given in writing. The precise
question IN this case was decided in 20 Ind, 80
That was a civil case but there Is only the
greater reason why the rule should apply to
criminal cases Judgment reversed
cHATTEL Observation-Disclosures PROPERTY.
1854. Walter s. Granger VS.. Henry c. AID
ans ct al Marion S. c.
Elliott, 1.-The only question presented is this:
Is mortgage on partnership personal property
executed by one partner In behalf of the firm re-
corded in the county where the property is situat
ed and the business of the firm conducted and the
party executing 1t resides, nut not recorded
in the county where the other members of the
firm reside valid as against credltorsl chattel
mortgage executed by persons residing in differ
ent counties must be recorded in each OF the
several counties. t2l N. j. Ed., 357; As Me-,
54S.l And the fact that the murtga is execut-
ed by partnership does change the rule.
O01 U. 5. 731; 10 n. B. Reg, 46; Herman Chat.
Mortg, 1872 Jones i'd, sec. 257) Judgment at
frmed.
ADMINISTRATIONS NEG
LIGENCE.
5000. L. IT. & L Railway Company vs. Chas.
3. Graham. Putnam c. c.
collars, J.-Appellee sued appellant for injuries
sustained in q collision with one of appellants
engines. At the time OF the collision appellee
was walking on appellants track where it was
down grade and the road somewhat curved. He
heard the whistle of the engine at the depot
about mile behind him, and looked back to see
II the train was approaching, and, not seeing it,,
still kept walking on the track, The engineer
did not him until too near for the
train To be stopped. There was evidence
tending TO show that no signals of warning were
given before the collision occurred. Appellee is
not entitled 10 recover under the first para
graph of his complaint charging negligence, for
in such case the plaintiff cannot recover if it
appears that he contributed to the injury by his
own negligence, (33 Ind, 335; 50 i'd, ITO; At
trespasser. No kind of care on his part could
make his presence there lawful. In such a case
the company is not liable on the ground of neg
ligenoe in running it's trains. az Ind, AS; Coo
ley on TOrts, 660D There is no evidence tending
to show that the collision was the result of will
fulness on the part of appellants servants The
presumption is that an able-bodied man tres
passing upon the company's track will leave it
before coming in collision with a train, ana
upon this presumption those in charge of the
train have a right to act until it Is apparent
that the trt spasser is not able to look
after his own safety. ZIG Ind. 2391 In its
twelfth instruction the court charged in
jury was wilfully, wantonly or reekessly in
ficted. Notwithstanding appellee may have
been guilty of contTibutory negligence. This in
struetOn seems TO have been based upon the
theory that there is middle ground of liability
between ordinary negligence and wilfuness
upon which appellee might recover, notwiJh-
standing his negligence. such distinction Is
not recognized in this State, (62 Ind, 30l, 500;
So i'd, 307 40 i'd, 545 SO i'd. 89l Judgment
reversed,
MUNICIPAL INDEBTEDNEss-THE 2 PER CENT,