The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-02
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record Yesterday.

Supreme Court-May 81.
Hon. William Il. Niblack. Chief Justice.
SUITS ny NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..

SUITS BY Neutrality-suspicious..
lOl4l. Hiram Hllenberg VS.. John s. Bennett,
administrator. Monroe c. G.
BLACK, C.-Tho act abOllslinG the Court OF
common Pleas transferred to the Circuit Court
exclusive jurisdiction III all matters relating 10
the settlement and distribution of decedentS'
estates, and III all actions i'll which executors or
administrators are the only defendants. Exec
utors and administrators may sue III the Circuit
Court on any claim accruing to them in their
hducary capacity without regard to the amount
of the demand, and costs will follow judgment,
even though the recovery be loss than 500. Go
Ind, 800; K. s., 2,29lJ Judgment affirmed.
RAILRoADs-sPECIAL TAX-PARr PAYMENT.
l0,269 Commissioners o. Upton County vs.
The indianapolis, Peru 81 Chicago Railway Com
pany. Miami G. C.
Hammond, J.-Section 10 of the act of
May IL, 1869, and section of the act of Dec
"a, 1872, which provide that il a railroad. for
whose benefit special tax has been levied,
IS not completed within three years after the
levy the donation shall be forfeited. were re-
peaed by the act of Jan. So 1873. (6S Ind,
800 In this the answer of the railroad
company averred that the appropriation was by
subscription TO its stock, and not by donations
that $4,000 of the tax was collected aud in
vested in the stock of the road and that the rest
was uncOllectaDle, except that due from the
plaintiff Sec. Is of the act OF 1869, which is
the law OF this by a former decision OF this
court, 90 Ind, 1851 makes the forfeiture of, or
non-completion within three years. apply only TO
donations ana not to subscriptions to the stock
Nor does 1t apply to "A case where ii part OF the
special tax has been collected and paid TO the
company; that 1t cannot be refunded TO the
taxpayers who paid 1t. To relieve those who
have not paid their special tax would make tax
alton unequal and would encourage the nom
payment of taxes, by giving those who had not
paid an advantage over those who had. (59
md, 52OJ The court erred in sustaining de-
murrer Ia the answer. judgment reversed.
JUDGMENT JURISDICTION - COLLATERAL AT
TACK.
s,94l. Cyrus Fl. Mccormick vs. Daniel H.
Webster. Porter c. c.
Elliott, J.-When the record OF court Of gen
eral jurisdiction is silent. jurisdiction Is pre-
sumed. al Ind, $40: 80 i'd, 81 The fact that
Judgment was rendered on the same day the
pleading filed, does not establish want of
jurisdiction. IL may have been that there was
one days service of process ANA if so the iud g
ment would not he vOld. 90 md, los; 70 i'd,
49, n id, 4091 Or the principal may have APP
proved or acknowledged the suretyship set up
in the pleading. Judgement affirmed.
MISCONDUCT OF JURY-PosSEssIoN OF REPORT.
lO,O39 Prince Jones VS.. the State. Wander
burg G. g.
H0wk il This case was once before in this
court and is reported in II Ind, &C. reveT-
sal is again claimed for the reason that durin Z
the deliberations OF the jury the volume of re-
ports containing the former decision OF
the case, some manner got into the
jury-roOm and remained there for
AN hour or more. 1t was not shown that any
of the jurors read the report OF the case, but
this 1t was impossible for the appellant TO do,
Hs juror cannot he heard to lmpeach his YER
dict, and one else Is allowed to be in the room
while the jury is celebrating. juror may be
heard in support of his verdict, however and
the State did not show that the book was not
read. The reported contains much of
the evidence on the former trial, some of which
WAS held competent and some Incompetent IL
was manifestly such misconduct for the Jury TO
read the decision of the former trial as entitled
the appellant to a new trial. (27 Ind, L. 50 i'd
1872 80 i'd, 10: 50 i'd, 346; rs Id, 474) Judg
meut reversed.