The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-22
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-Feb. FL.
Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.

SPECIAL FlNDlNG-NENlhE DE NON0
9.452. James t. Smith VS.. William Goodwin.
Elliott, 1.-The ruls that a special finding
should not set forth the evidence, but should
state the facts, is "A statutory one. Appellant
had a right to a finding, as a fact, whether the
appellees we're in possession under license from
the testator, or were holding under au adverse
claim of title. 1t was the duty of the court to
have Xamine all the evidence, and from il de-
duced and stated its conclusion. What purpOrt
to be conclusions of law are for the most part
mere inferences of fact. Appellants motion for
a venire de novO should have been sustained.
Judgment reversed.
SPECIAL F~INDING-IssUEs MADE IN THE CASE.
1891. Lewis R. Thomas VS.. Wilson t. Dale.
Fayette @. G.
this case were found in favor of APP
pellants. Outside of the matters in
issue the court made certain findings of facts,
and thereon based it's conclusions OF law and
rendered Judgment accordingly This cannot
be done. The court cannot. any more than a jury,
20 outside of the case made by the pleadings.
(52 Ind, 10l; 50 i'd, 19l, 226; Ga i'd, LOG; rs ID,
1; 81 N. Y, 509) Judgment reversed.
DISTURBING PUBLIC Observation-Disclosures.
1O,695. Benjamin Howard VS.. The State. Sui
livan G. c.
Nihlaek, This was a prosecution under Sec
ton 1,9sS, Revised Statutes, 1881. for disturb
ing a public meeting. 1t is claimed that the aft
davit was bad for failure TO state the particular
purpose for which the meeting had assembled
so as TO enable the court to determine whether
the purpose was "a lawful one or not. The ale
CATION That the meeting was for a lawful purpose
follows the statute. and as a general rule, that ia
sufficient. (53 Ind, $50; Bishop Stat. Crimes,
section 1878; Mooreis Grim. Law, section 17O)
Whether the meeting was in fact for a lawful
puT pose or not is a question to be determined
from the evidence. Judgment affirmed.
DELIVERY NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
10,027. James W. Smith vs.. Lee Scott, Della
ware c.. c.
Woods, G. ia bond which recites that
certain property described has been
attached, and that the parties bind
themselves to the plaintiff that the
property shall be properly kept and that so
much as may be required to satisfy any judg-
ment recovered against the defendent in the
action shall be delivered on demand to the Of
ficer, or that the defendant will pay the APP
praisement value thereof, is 80 plainly intended
to comply with sec. 169 or the Code 1882, that
it is incompetent to show by parol, or by aver
meut aliunde that it was designed to operate
under section 172. Upon such an undertake
ing there is no liability where no
Judgment was rendered in the action
for the sale of the attached property.
(46 Ind, 1851 And the rendering of a personal
Judgment alone is equivalent to a dismissal or
discharge Of the proceedings in attachment.
as Ind. 508.) Iu a suit on such a bond before
a Justice on affidavit for an appeal to the Circuit
Court, which shows that the bond was given
under section 1853, and that the attachment suit
in which it was executed ended in a personal