The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-27
NOVEMBER Pc.
Hon. G. Y. Howli. Chi,
INSTRUCTIONS - PRACTICE INTEREST OF W
NESS,


INSTRUCTIONS - PRACTICE - INTEREST OF WIT
NESS.
10,19l. James Dodd VS.. Charlotte A Moore,
Monroe C. @.
collars, J.-Before reading his Instructions to
the jury the judge made the following oral state
ment: "The plaintiff has requested me to give
you some instructions which are in writing and
Will read them first. and l read them rs the
law" This statement did net amount 10 an in
struetion. It was not the enunciatlon of any
principle of law, nor a direction to guide them
141: 81 Ind, 1885, 73 i'd, 500 The practice,
however, of announcing that certain instruc-
tons were asked by one party or the other is To
| be condemned. The court charged that the
weight of a witnesses evidence depends upon his
In erest in the case, and that you therefore
give such effect and force to the testimony of
the pla1nttH and defendant as yOu think would
be praper III view of what may be at stake 10
the plaintiff or defe ndant respectively" Courts
cannot say as matter of law that because a wit
ness has an interest N the litigation less weight
should be given to his testimony. The instruC-
ton lnvades the province of the jury, and thew
are told III effect that as matter OF law less
weight should be given to the testimony of the
parties because they are interested in the result
of the litigation. 90 Ind, 455; SO i'd, 400;
| Thompson Oh. Jury. So, so Judgment re-
Versed.
CITY-ERRoR OF UDGMENr-LIABILITY
10,579. Melvina 7. ROzell VS.. City Of Ander-
son. Madison G. c.
Howk, G. J.-where the Instructions com
planned of were given by the court, but little is
gained by the statement In the bill of eXce2-
tions that the Instructions were applicable to
the evidence because this would be presumed
in any event 1t is only where the refusal of
Instructions is complained of that the proviso
in $50 r. s is of practical service. 1t was not
error to charge that city is not liable for errors
In Judgment or mistakes in policy, although
damage thereby results to private property.
Where sewer is constructed in a skilf al man
ner and kept in repair The city will not be liable
because of an error in judgment mistake Of
the city authorities in regard to the capacity OF
the sewer to perform the w0rksfor which IL
intended. Us Ind, 241; 70 ia, 49l; 81 i'd, $3.50
Judgment affirmed.
TRIAL BY JURY-cHANCERY CASES.
1O,476. Peter Carmichael vs.. Benz. F. Adams
Monroe c. c.
declares that the right of trial by jury shall re-
main inVioate merely preserves that right as IL
existed existed when the constitution was
Jury in chancery proceedings did not
then exist the Legislature is not prohibited
from declaring that suits in equity may be trel
by the court. Where equity jurisdiction is de-
velOped it continues throughout the entire con
troversy and ends only with IA complete adjust
ment OF the rights of the parties AMI the award
of full relief t25 Wis, 81. %: so Mo-, 16l 81 Pa.
ST.. 49S; Is Wall, 211) Where the court has
acquired jurisdiction of a suit in equity TO fore
close a mortgage, IL is not bound to disseet the
suit into separate members and try each sep
arately. one as "A matter OF law and the other as
matter of equity, but may treat the case as "A
unity and as one OF exclusive equitable iurIsdic-
ton. Judgment affirmed.
MISUNDERSTANDING sToCK-CoMPLAINT
10,843 Louisville, New Albany & Chicago
Railway Company VS.. Jacob DERRICK. Jasper
q. @.
Nbaek, J.-Aetion for killing q mare The
com plant ayerred that where the mare entered
upon the railway and WAS injured and killed,
SAID railway was not securely and lawfully
fenced, aud in fact was not fenced at all. These
averments sufficiently connect the want of u
fence with the injury 10 the mare. 1t Is COM
planned that question did not sufficiently iden-
tlfy the mare, concerning which inquiry was
made. The answer shows that The witness
ola ri Va IN NUn raft pah m
and nothing more could hYVe been accomplished
by more specific question. Judgment al
firmed.
TAX TITLEs-DEED NOT CONCLUSIVE
1O,3O4. Frank NJ. Millikan vs. William A. Pat
tersou. Howard G. G.
Hammond, J.-Seclion 224, R. S 1876, which
makes tax deeds conclusive evidence of all the
facts recited therein, relates only to such facts
as required by the statutory form. If the
deed rectes facts outside of this FORM 1t is NOT
as TO such additional facts, either conclusive or
prima faclp evidence. But admitting that the
recital of the want OF personal property ont of
which the taxes could be collected was eOnclu-
sive, there remained many other requirements
TO make the deed rffectual. To prove "A valid
tax-tite, it is necessary 10 show that every ma
terial requirement of the law, in every step nee
essary to be taken to authorize the sale has
| been strictly complied with. (23 Ind, 80. 433;
| % id 1874; BlHckwe on Tax titles, y. co. In
such a case, the claim that the finding should
have included interest to the date of trial, was
in Effect claim that the finding against the ap-
pellre was "tOo small" and could only be pre-
trial. go Ind. 8; 6S i'd, l24 20 i'd, 1867
| Judgment affirmed.
| The following cases were also decided, abb
| stracts Of which will appear Tomorrow.
| VIM Faustv vs.. cry OF Illumination. Hunting
| ton c. G.. Affirmed. Elliott, ].
| VIM. w. Wnollen VS.. Price Whtacre. Hunting.
! ton G O. Affirmed. Hammond j.
| Thomas l.. Fowler Vs. The State. Henry G. G.
| Affirmed. Niback,J
Horace s. Case vs. Thomas Johnson. Tippeoa-
noe G. q. Affirmed. Howk, g. j.