The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-10
RECORD or THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record Yesterday.
Full Abstract of tine Opinions Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.

APPEALs-AssIGNMENr OF ERRORS.

APPEALs-AssIGNMENr OF ERRORS.
1887. Nick Burst VS.. The State. Perry C. C.
tne assignment of errors constitutes the appel
lanSs compliant or cause of action in this court.
100 Ind, 3l6; IL i'd. 244) For the want Of an
assignment of error the appeal is dismissed.
TURNPIKE Observation-Disclosures To MAKE BE-
PORTS.
C. G.
EIliotr, J--Tnformatiou under sec 1899, R. g.,
against the directors OF u turnpike company for
FAILURE TO file the report OF the financial cOudl-
ton OF the company required by law. Ii is
charged that they came inro office on July %,
1882. rhe statute REQUIRES he statement TO be
made within fifteen days after the first day OF
July in each year, aud the duty of making the
report, therefore, rested on the predeces-
s0rs OF the appellees, aud the law was viO-
lated before the latter came into office.
The law applies to directors in office at the
time the breach of duty occurs, and not TO those
VINO come III afterwarde, (lOl u. -, 1852 IL ls
the directors, as directors, vino are liable and
NOT the corporation, (S4 Ind, 1881 And the liza
btlftv of the directors does not end with the eX-
piratOn or their term of office The statute is
not unconstitutional on the ground of imposing
excessive tnes. The fine for one days violation
Is by no means excessive, and while each days
refusal adds TO that punishment. the offenders
have 1t IN their power to escape by doing what
the law enjOins. The section prescribing pun
ishment is fairly within the title of the act.
Judgment affirmed.
EXAMINATION OF PARTY-sTRIKING OUT PLEAD
ING.
10,365. John NJ. Chafin vs.. Dennis Brown
field st. Joseph C. G.
Howk, J.-Under Sec. 295 OF the code OF $50,
party might be examined generally as wit
ness in the case before the trial, but under Sec
5o9 OF the code the party
only be examined concerning any mat
ter stated the pleading" At the
time of appellants examination there was
no pleading on file except his complaint and the
questions which he refused answer, and for
which refusal his complaint was stricken out.
were not concerning any matter stated IN the
complaint, but were irrelevant and Impairment,
and appellant was justified in refusing TO answer
them. BY section 5l3 it is provided that amy
party refusing TO attend 6ud testify may be pun
swer or reply be stricken out. Appellant did not
refuse to attend and testify, but only refused to
answer certain questions under the advice of
MS counsel, on the ground OF their irreIevanoy.
The court erred in striking ont his complaint.
30 Ind, SID Judgment reversed.
GUARDIAN AND wARD-coNvERsIoN
1920. Joseph Asher VS.. the State, ex rel. APP
plegate. Hendricks c. C.
Niblaek, Jon petition for rehearing. Appel
liant, surety on the bond of Brown, "A guardian,
complains that he is charged with certain pension
money which Brown failed to in clude in his report
of assets, and again for tho same money invest
ed In certain land. 1t does not appear from the
finding, however, that the pension money WAS
invested in the land. When Brown expressly
failed to account for part OF the money which
had come into his hands his liability on his bond
become liked, and for the purposes OF this case
1t is not material to Inquire what he otherwise
may have done with the same moneys, except to
ascertain whether they still remain unaccoun ted
for. Pension money received by a guardian is
more strictly guarded than moneys received by
him from other sources (R S., U S., ssc. 4.783 }
Browns conversion of the pension Nancy con-
stituted crime as we'll as legal liability. Petit
ton overru.ed.
the Supreme Court. to fill out the unex pred term
OF Chief Justice Woods