The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-03

without the knowledge of the maker, releases
the latter. 80 Ind, 80; 70 i'd, S4) The addl-
ton of the name of "A party maker is SUCH an
alteration. q Blkf, 81; II Ind, 16l; 20 i'd,
1872 Judgment affirmed
L-PLAYING-1NDIcTMENT
1850. The State VS.. Nicholas Dupies. Ben
ton G. c.
Niblack, C. jim an Indictment for keeping a
billiard or pool table, as the exception In favor
of tables kept in private families is contained in
subsequent section, IL need not be expressly
negatived in an Indictment under either section
2,OS7 or 2,OSS, but the Indictment ought to state
facts sufficient to constitute an ofense under
one OF Those sections, and should at least INFER
entially show that the table played upon was
not table kept used in private family.
where such playing is not prohibited, and is con
sequently lawful The case is an exception to
the general rule that it is sufficient to charge the
ottense in the language of the statute. 81 IND,
To- rs i'd, al SO i'd, 3OS) The Indictment
should either charge that the defendant unlaw-
fully permitted the person to play, or to aver
facts from which the unlawful character of the
transaction may he fairly Inferred. Judgment
affirmed.
COUNTY LIBRARIES TRUSTEES
1926. Felix A. Traylor VS.. Peter $. Dykus.
Scott G. G.
Howk, 1.-The statute makes the auditor,
clerk and recorder ex oficiO trustees OF the
county library. ana gives them the power to dis
pose of the library funds They are authorized
TO loan the surplus of the library fund, and
where they do so, and take mort
gage to themselves, they are trustees
of an express trust, and may sue i'll their own
benefit the action Is prosecuted tSec. 252, X
81 Appellants having contracted in express
terms with the clerk auditor and recorder as
such trustees, are in no condition TO question
the right of appelees, as successors In SUCH
| trust, 20 maintain an action on the contract
(28 Ind l12; "a i'd. 81 AT i'd, L. Judgment
affirmed.
DEYIsEE-PoWER OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
EXECUTION.
1886 Marcellus South vs. BENZ. F. South
| Hendricks G. c.
Elliott, 1.-THE will of Henry South beGueathed
to his wife all of the property of which he died
The only question is whether the estate was for
life or in fee. COncedlng that the widow had a
life estate only. yet it was Joined with abso-
| lutte power of disposition, and where this is so
the deed of the devisee, intended rs eXer-
else of the power, will convey fee
| The deed passes not merely her life estate. but
also the estate of which she had the absolute
night of disposition. (S2 Ind, 240.) 1t is not
| necessary that the power should be referred to
| in the deed or will when the intent is otherwise
manifested &c Peters, $50; story, 427: AZ Ind,
423; 90 Mass. 270; 90 H., SIS; 69 i'd, 500; SO
N. Y, 1881 deed of general warranty, pur-
porting to convey fee and made upon full con-
sideration, Will execute the power. (6S Me-,
100; IS Mo, 439.l The intent manifested by
the will is all that is necessary to execute the
power, and this intent is sufficiently evidenced
by disposition of the entire interest in the prop
erty. Judgment affirmed.
9,949 Frederick Sanders vs.. Emma Mugge,
ct al. Marion s. c. Reversed. Hammond. j.