The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-09
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.
Supreme Court-May s.
Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.
HUSBAND AND w1FE-rRusr IN LANDS.

HUSBAND AND WIFE-TRUST IN LANDS.
6,82s. Joseph Boyer va. George e. Libey.
Steuben c. c.
Elliott, J.-suit by appellant on note. The
administrator of Emily Ieigler's estate answered
that in 1870 the said Emily furnished her hus-
oand' George Zeigler, $4,000, with which to pur-
chase land for her, which he did, taking the deed
IN MS own name, with the agreement and with
out any fraudulent intent, that he should hold
the land in trust for her; that he afterwards sold
the land to Libey, the maker of the note sued on,
who purchased without notice of the trust, and
gave the note in part payment; that afterwards
said George Zeigler, without the consent of said
Emily, transferred the note to the plaintiff, who
had fun notice of Emuy's claim, and that said
George was and is insolvent, and has left the
state. This answer was good. GA Ind, 60;
esq., g i'd "a lG 49, g &c., i'd 81 sS2 d. 81 s7 81
The owner of the beneficial interest in land
may follow the proceeds OF it into the hands OF
one who had notice of the rights OF tine beueic-
larry. Judgment affirmed.
SUIT BY ITNEssEs-CoMPETENCY
lO077. William Z. Williams ct al vs. Alice
Riley ct al, Henry c. C.
Howk, 1.-THE heirs of a decedent who died
intestate, owing no debts, and there being
administration, may sue for the recovery of
debt due the decedent. (54 Ind, 524; 5S
appears from the evidence that there are debts
OF the estate unpaid, the plaintiff will fail. 1t so
appeared IN this case nor was there any proof
that the widow OF the deceased had rehuquished
her claim to the 5000 allowed her bv the statute
(2i When the objection TO "A witness Ia that his
testimony is prevalent and immaterial. n o 0ues-
tion as to the competency of the witness is pre-
scented. Mary Williams was not allowed to
testify because she was the wife of one
or the defendants. This was error Husband
and wife are no longer incompetent witnesses
for or against each other. except rs to contiden-
Ilal COMMUNICATIONS. t67 Ind. 424 81 id, 449;
" H., 500 There was no offer to prove any
communication in this case. The offer was to
prove that the note sued on had been fully paid
IN the lifetime OF the decedent. Judgment re-
versed.
NEWLY DISCOVERED EvIDENCE-DILIG ENCE-CU-
MULATIvE EVIDENCE.
9,437 Harriet Koenler VS.. David NJ. Bartlett.
Warren c. G.
Niblack, faction by appellant for seduction
under promise of marriage. Tie question Is
whether appellant was entitled to q new trial on
the ground of newly-discOvered evidence. The
affidavit alleged that during the time she lived
at the defendants house boy named Kertman,
aged fifteen, also lived there; thai before The
trial he was asked if he knew anything about
the case, and answered that he did not; that
since the trial he had disclosed that he
overheard certain conversations between the
plaintiff and defendant in which they spoke of
getting married, and In one Of which the de-
PENDANT said: ave must not do what we have
done any more II anything happens wrong to
you we VIII get married and go out to Iowa this
summer" Held: No want of diligence APP
peared in not having the testimony of KIrtman
at the former trial. Nor this evidence
merely cumulative II this evidence had been
introduced at the trial, it would have tended to-
prove the same substantial facts those TO
which the testimony of all the other witnesses
for the plaintiff was directed, but in materially
different way. There was no other testimony rs
tiff herself, and these the defendant wholly de-
MED He denied also that he had ever spoken to
the girl about marriage. 1t would have been
the Introduction OF other circumstances tending
to establish the facts In issue and this is not GU
mulative evidence. Il Greenl. Ev. Sec 2; "a
Pick, 246; 40 Ind, 1s9; "a Id, 79) Judgment
reversed.
sLANDER-woRDs NOT IMPUTING CRIME
10,3s5. Andrew Pollock VS.. Samuel Hastings.
Koscusko c. c.
Elliott, J.-Compaint for SANDER. 1t is alleged
that appellant had obtained the contract TO fur
nish wood to a certain school district, and that
the appellee had said he had furnished wood
that was worthless and rotten and had piled up
the ricks with good wood on the outside and rot
ten wood inside for the purpose of defraudlng
the school district; that he a swindler, and
would defraud any person whenever he had q
chance, etc. 1t is not SANDER per to charge
u man with fraud or to say that he is n cheat or
a swindler. There is no charge in any of the
language used that appellant was guilty of
crime, and therefore the words are not action
appears that appellee WIS speaking of a trans
action which did nor constitute crime ana
even II words descriptive of a crime had been
used there would have been actonable
| Islander, (37 Ind. "a; Odgers SANDER. 100 n.y.
Where the complaint discoses facts showing
that the words did not charge crime their mean
ing cannot be changed by an allegation that
they had provincial meaning signlfying that
the person of whom they were spoken had OBJ
tanned money or property by false pretenses.
Their meaning cannot be changed by the innu-
endo as Ind, d45; s. c., IL Am. r. 5S7, NJ
Judgment affirmed.