The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-23
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record Yesterday.
Full Abstract of the Opinions Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.
snnreme Cnurt-Ont. &c.
D"f1 o1IlO O"N'I OO1' NV
PUEBLO CARRIERs-puTIEs TO PAssENGERs.

PUBLIC CARRIERS-DUTIES TO PASSENGERS.
10,939 L. & n. Railway Company VS.. Isaac
8. Kelly. VandeTburg G. G.
Elliott, J.-Appellee was a passenger on an
excursion train of appellant; the Cal was so
crowded that he could get no seat, and, after
standing long time, the conductor directed
him to go into another car, and as he was at
tempting TO cross from one car to another he
was carelessly purposely josted by one of the
brakemen and thrown from the train. Railway
companies are bound to provide safe places for
passengers and TO make reasonable provision for
seating them. CThOmp. Carriers 224; Hutch
neglect and willful wrongs of their servants
done in the line Of their employment; q Am
81 i'd, 20; 80 N. Y, II, $3.50 While carriers of
passengers not insurers of the safety of their
passengers, yet il is their duty to carry them
safely. IA Ind, 1S4.) 1t is the duty OF passen-
gers to obey the reasonable directions OF tine
agents in charge of the train where there is no
knowledge that such obedience would lead to
danger. (56 Wis, 227; SO n. Y, 35l; 20 Pa.
st., 526; 70 Ind, 203J Judgment affirmed.
INDEPENDENTLY AS DEFENSE.
11,135. Eliza Sage VS.. The State. Blackboard
Niolack, c. J.-Appellant was prosecuted for
murder and relied on insanity as a defense. A
non-expert witness who has had acquaint-
ance with the defendant, or has had conversa-
tons, business dealings social intercourse
with him, may express an opinion as TO his men
tai condition, and the value of that opinion is a
question for the jury. (39 Ind, 492: So i'd, 343;
70 i'd, 511.l The term ''insanlty," under the
statutes of this State, includes every species of
organic mental arrangement, whether of mild
or violent form, and excludes every other cOndi-
ton of the mind. (2. s., sec. l, 764 and 1859
Actual insanity, therefore. however partial it
may be, is a defense and not a mitigating cir
cumstance in a prosecution for crime. (42
Ind, $50; 81 id, 461) This court cannot make
an allowance TOR the attorney of q poor person.
(StOut vs. Inc State, this term.) Judgment at
tirmed.
OPENING NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
TIoN.
9.304. Theodore ]. Heagy VS.. John Trump.
KOscIusko G. G.
Black C.-Appellees, who were adjoining land
owners, brought this action to restrain the road
supervisor from opening a new highway through
their lands, alleging that appellant was threat
enlng TO dig up their fruit trees, crops ETC., and
do them irreparable injury; that he deviat-
ing from the line established by the county COM
mlssl0Ders; that no notice of the petition as
ever given, nor was there any report by viewers
that the proposed highway would be of public
utility, ETC. The complaint shows that each of
the plaintiffs owned a portion of the lands men-
TONED In seVeraIty. If the proceedings before
the board were not void, and the defendant was
about 10 open road upon a line deviating from
the one established, the acts threatened by the
defendant would be his individual acts, and
would constitute a private tresspass, and either
plaintiff might maintain suit to enjUn their
commission. (23 Ind, 623; 26 i'd, 1893; II i'd,
444; 80 Wis., $50; Is Cal, 443.) But the plain
tlls could not JOIN IN such an action. The injury
TO each would be separate and distinct and there
would be no joint cause of action. But If the
proceedings before the board were void. such a
jonder of plaintiffs is permissible, to avoid null
tlplcitY OF suits. 1t was not necessary that
the viewers should report that the proposed
road would be of public utility, or that the
board should expressly so find. Upon the COM
ing in of the report, if no objection is made to
the proposed highway, vacation or change, the
board shall merely cause record thereof TO be
made, ana shall OrGel the same to be opened
| tR. s., sec. 5,018) 1t was alleged that no notice
or the application was given provided by
| law. and that therefore the board had no juris-
dietion to appoint viewers. This is a collateral
attack upon "A judgment of court of record of
limited and special Jurisdiction. The giving Of
the notice Is n iurisdlctional fact, and when the
board has found that due notice given and
proceeded to act by appointing viewers, the de-
c1slon In regard TO notice is conclusive (46
Ind, SO; 20 i'd, 400; II i'd. 52I; rs i'd, 20) The
demurrer to the complaint should have been
sustained, Judgment reversed.