The Indianapolis journal., 1883-06-07
SUPREME COURT-JUNE 9.
CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS - WHO

CN-'N-@-Nh--1-
TRAVELLER"
l0,979. Nick Blrst VS.. The State. Perry c. G.
Hammond, Tins was a prosecution FOR car
rying concealed weapon, undcr section ,9S5
r. s. The evidence showed that appellant was
a resident of Perry county, and was extensively
engaged in the stave business, having stave
yards at various places in Perry and Spencer
counties, and thar he travelled from his residence
in buggy TO and from these places. On the day
OF his arrest he stopped at picnic twenty-five
miles from home. and while there made harm
less exhibition of a pistol to one person and then
replaced it in his pocket. This evidence showed
that appellant was traveller within the mean
ing of the statute (47 Ala, AZ: 63 i'd, 50; 25
Am. r., 654.) Judgment reversed.
SALE OF LIoUoR-EvIDENCE.
1o.S24. Eugene Morei vs. The StaIe. Wayne
Howk, J.-Under an indictment for the
evidence must show that the liquor was sold
to be drunk as a beverage; but where the
evidence shows sale of Intoxicating liquor
which is ordinarily used as a beverage, the de-
fendant may be found guilty unless he shows
that the liquor was not sold ''to be drunk as
beverage" This is matter of defense to be
shown by him. II is we'll settled that newly dis
covered evidence Which only contradiets OF i'm
peaches the testimony OF a witness ON a previous
trial is not ground for new trial. 40 Ind, 351;
81 iG. IS; II i'd 1922 Judgment affirmed.
RECKLESS RIDINa-NEGLIGENcE
.9s72. VIM. Simmons VS.. Margaret GaynOr
Huntington c. c.
Elliott, J.-The fact that a footman is !cross
hs rsFnaT srossSg s Rs0o footmeu ooner M
not Of itself defeat an action for inju-
ries caused By hOrseman's neggently riding
against him. Reckless and careless riding
driving on muoh-traveled streets of city con-
stitutes aBti0nable negligence. g Carr. and h.
81 Ordinances of a city may be considered iu
determining whether the speed of the horse at
the time of q collision ls excessive. (Shear and
Red, Neg. sos; 81 Ind 36U. Judgment af
firmed.
CoRPoRATIoNs-ACTs OF AGENTS.
9,629, l., N. A. & q. Railroad Company VS..
Joseph E. Henly. Washington c. q.
Franklin. C.-Appellees sued appellant upon
contract TO run an excursion train from Mitchell
to Indianapolis. The admission in evidence OF
certain conversations with the general ticket
agent OF appellant, was not error. The agent
made the original contract with the appelees,
and was therefore competent to change it. A
corporation can only speak through its agents,
ana where 1t selects its own agent to ansWer in
terrogatorles filed in a case, il is bound by such
answers, and the party propounding them has a
Judgment affirmed.
JUSTICES CoURTs-ARBITRATIoN AND AWARD.
i0,2o6. Murza Hollingsworth vs. Mary Stone.
Hendricks C. G.
that she sued appellant before one johnson,
justice OF the peace; that appellant
filed plea OF set-of, without asking for any
Judgment against the plainCitf, and stated that
he claimed none; that the matters in issue were
submitted to arhitrators who never made any
legal award, but said Johnson afterwards en-
tered a Judgment for 8 80. % against the plant
IN; that afterwards, by threatening to sell her
property and by representing that she could not
way, induced her TO pay $ll0 on 1t, and that
they still hold said money. A submission TO
bitration cannot be made a rule of a Justices
court (39 Ind, $500, and the Judgment was void
The complaint shows false claim upon a void
judgment. On one side was a poor. sick widow
In great aflietion and ignorant of her rights and
on the other side the Justice, with his color of
legal authority, acting with the other defendant
The COMPLAINT shows strong case of money
improperly obtained by false representations
imposition and undue advantage. Money paid
under snch CIRCUMSTANCES may be recovered
back. Il Story Eq, sec. 134: "a Ind, i, 90; 46
i'd, 552J Judgment affirmed
pEcEDENrs' EsrATEs-''opposIrE PARTY"
9.965. Sarah CupP vs.. Jonathan ID. Ayers
Huntington c. c.
Caleb Ayers, TO set aside a deed executed by him
to appellants for fraud. Mary and Agnes Ayers.
children of the deoedent, were made defendants
with the appellants, and at the trial were
allowed to testify as to matters which occurred
before the death OF the aeoedent. Under the
act OF March Is, 1879. these defendants were
not "Opposite parties" within the meaning of the
statute. Their interest was adverse to that of
the appellants, and was the same that OF the
plaintiffs. Appellants were Interested IN main
tanning the deed, and all the other parties in
setting it aside so that the property might go
as provided IN the will. az Ind, Se: 80 i'd,
592; 80 i'd, 3l6) In so far as rs Ind, 236, de-
olares that the overruling of an objection to the
testimony OF the witness by the court amounts
to the courts requiring the witness 70 testify,
that case should be regarded as overruled. When
the court everrues such an objection 1t holds that
the law permits the witness to testify without
DciuR tcQuiTca Wy tHo oppbsluo party OF Dy Jn6
court; when 1t orders the party to testify, it ia
the act OF the court exercising judicial discre-
tton and not by way of adjudging right de-
manded by party as such. Judgment reversed.
ABUTTIHG LoT-owNER-EJEcTMENT.
1922 I. H. & S, Il. Railway Company vs.. John
T. Rodel. Vigo c. &.
Elliott, Jon petition for rehearing. The
property lie specifically described In the com
plaint, and the description is followed by the
statement ''that said real estate abuts First
street. in the city OF Terre Haute, aud the de-
Ilni1 " fiIllV md WithOut rlPht takfp
possession of said First street" The owner of
a lot abutting on a street owns the fee TO the
middle of the street. The complaint is good %
Ind. ACT; 3 Wash, r. p. 4th ed 429; Ill GRAY,
2S3 13 Allen, 1863 The lot-owner is not estop-
ped from maintaining an action OF ejectment be-
cause he does not forbid the occupancy Of the
street by railroad company. There Is no ele-
ment of estoppel ia such case. Reheariug de-
MED
Catherine Brenner We. Samuel s. Quick Ham
iltou c. G. Reversed. Norris G.
Superior Court.
Room No. Hon, Napoleon b. Taylor, Judge.
Johnston & Irwin Vs. city of Indianapolis ct al.