The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-27
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Couats of
Record Yesterday.
Full Abstract of the Opinions Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.

INQUEST OF INsANITY-pRACTICE.

10,5O5. William NJ. Nice vs. Orlando Hamil-
ton. Decatur O. G.
2,o46 and 2,547 r. S. 1881, TO have appellant de-
clared of unsuund mind. 1t is objected that no
trial, and that the court therefore had no jurls.
dlctlon. The record shows mat from the time OF
filing the written statement by the appellee I'M
I'll the return of the verdict, JUDGMENT thereon
and the appointment of guardian the appel
liant was IN open court IN attendance upon the
proceedings. Being thus present it was lmma-
terial whether he was produced by order OF the
court, by appellee, or appeared voluntarily. In
either event he would have the same opportu-
nifty to defend ana protect his rights. (e2 Ind,
2l4) Judgment affirmed.
SPECIAL NATURALIZATION.
1857 John Austin VS.. Jas. B. Earhart. Tip
pecanoe G. G.
Elliott, J.-There is no rule of practice author
izng the statement Of conclusions of law upon
special VerdioJs. The statute on this subject
applies only to special findings made by the
court. Questions upon the rulings of the court
on special verdlcts may be reserved by moving
for judgment thereon and properly saving an ex-
ctption, and by excepting TO the sustaining OF
the adverse party's motion for Judgment. Judg-
ment affirmed.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILD.
1886. Terrence Holmes VS.. The State. Mont
gomery G. C.
Howk, J.-Prosecution for selling liquor with
out license The evidence shows that the sale
was made by appellant to boy eleven years
old. who represented that his mother was
SICK, and that he wanted the liquor
for her. Appellant had sold liquor to
the boy previously under similar circunI-
stances. and though he frequently saw
the boys mother she had never told him to let
the boy have whisky. Held: The law will not
excuse the unlawful sale of Intoxicating liquor
to such a child, whether made by druggist or
licensed retailer, upon the statements OF the boy
or the belief of the vender, founded on such
statements. Where the instructions given by
the court are not in the record the judgment Will
not be reversed on account of the refusal OF the
court to give certain instructions asked by the
deteadant (57 Ind, 1873; 90 i'd, 2S2; Il i'd,
117D Judgment affirmed.
KEEPING LIQUOR SALOON IN DIsoRDERLY NAN
10,760. Anton Overinan VS.. TheState. Wayne
G. C.
Niblack, J-ProseeutiOn for keeping a licensed
saloon in disorderly manner. The prosecuting
witness claimed to have personal knowledge of
only one disturbance at the. appellants place
of business, and that was the one to which
all the other witnesses made reference.
In such cases the disorder must be repeated
often enough to indicate manner of keeping,
and a single instance of disorder is not sulfciens
to make out the case. (Bicknell Grim. Law,
4o2; 2 whort, Grim L, 2.399i Bishop,
Grim. Law, Lib; 81 Mimi, AZ; 8 Yerger 350.(
Judgment reversed.
9,538. Jesse johnson vs.. State ex rel. Holi-
day. Blackboard 9. c.
Elliott, J.-Tne only point made in this case is
that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence
but the court finds that the verdict is fully sup
ported. Judgment affirmed.
COUNTY Misunderstanding ALLOWANCES.
9,9l1. Richard Miller VS.. Lucius Enibree.
Gibson c. G.
GODS, C. J.-It is the duty of the county
treasurer to collect delinquent taxes,
and if legal advice assistance becomes
necessary he must employ it at his
own expense. And contract by the board of
commissioners to pay extra for such services is
VOID. fort Wayne VS.. Lenr, No. 10,44S, this
term.) In this case the board allowed appellant
$500 for services rendered attorney in as
sisting in the collection OF delinquent taxes, and
on appeal to the Circuit Court demurrer to the
claim was sustained. Appellant contends that If
the contract to pay him was void the case is one
of an allowance for voluntary services, which was
within the discretion of the board, and from
which appeal did not lie, under sections
5,763 and 5,77O, R. s. These provisions do
not authorize allowances flor any service
done or thing furnished voluntarily which may
not be lawfully contracted for, and where the
the board makes an allowance where 1t might
not have made contract the order is illegal,
and renet may be had by appeal. az Ind, 49,
70 i'd, 549 55 i'd, 334; K. 8. S5,769. 5.772.) Judg
ment affirmed.