The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-12-22

PRACTIcE-cRoss-ExAMINATIoN.

PRACTIcE-cRoss-ExA
10000. Alonzo Cary ct TX. vs. City of Rich
FRANKLIN, C.-Appellants sued for false impris
onment of the wife. Answer that she was ar
rested as prostitute under the vagrant act. At
the trial appellees proved certain conduct be-
tween Mrs. Cary and one Stokes upon sofa at
her house shortly before the arrest. In rebuttal
Mrs. Cary and Stokes testified that no such con.
Duct TOOK place, and also that they had not so
testlned In the mayors court Witnesses were
then introduced and testified that they did so
testify in the mayors courts Appellants
counsel then asked the witnesses what other
facts or circuns tanees Mrs. Cary testified TO on
such former trial, to which an objection was sus-
tanned. The question was proper at least for
the purpose or testing the memory of the wit
nesses. reasonably extended crossexamina-
tiOn in such cases should be allowed. (57 Ind.
547, l; 80 i'd, 596; 40 i'd, 124J Judgment re-
versed.
DEPOSITION SIGNED BY INITIALS.
10000. Jno. F. Payne VS.. David Jones. Mont
gomery c. @.
Best, C-The mere fact that a deposition is
signed only by the initials of the Christian
names of the witnesses is not sufficient rea-
son for its suppression. Such signature is pre-
sumptive evidence that the witness signed his
deposition, and if the witness did not really sign
it the onus Is on the director TO: show it, Petit
ton for rehearing overruled.
DEFAULT-ExcUsABLE NEGLECT.
1851. John E. McGaughey vs.. James H.
Woods. Rush c, c.
Franklin, C.-Appellant's complaint to have
Judgment by default against him set aside,
showed that he had employee George B. Sleeth,
a competent attorney, to take charge of his case.
who informed him IL would not be necessary for
him to be in court on the return day of the sum-
mons; that Sleeth had arranged to be absent
from the court on that day, and before leaving
had arranged with all the attorn eys and the
court that no cases in which he was interested
should be taken up on that day, but had omitted
to particularly inform the attorneys the court
of this case being sot for that day. Held II
wpud DE unreasonable to hold that Sleeth should
have specifically pointed out each case in which
aSarlar In fIaaf
day. THE neglect of appellant was excusable.
Judgment reversed.
ADMINISTRATORS BoND-PLEADING,
| 1864. State ex rel Jones vs. Elizabeth Cloud.
Ohio @. c.
Elliott J-Action on the bond of an admins
tratrix for wasting and converting money of the
estate. Answer that the ADMINISTRATIVE fully
administered all the personal estate OF the de-
ce dent which came TO her knowledge and pos
| session. The general bond OF an administrator
does not cover money realized from the sale of
real estate, and as the com plant did not allege
/ that the money misappied was derived from
| the personal estate of the decedent, the answer
| was sufficient. AS the complaint shows that ap-
pellee sold real estate, 1t cannot be said that the
money alleged to have been wasted and con-
/ Yerted was not received from the sale of such
| real estate An answer TO such complaint,
4 showing full administration of all the personal
estate, must be deemed sufficient. Judgment
( affirmed.
The following cases were also decided, alb
| stracts of which will appear on Monday:
Henry Robertson VS.. VIM H. Huffman. Wash
ington c. c. Reversed. Hammond, J.
Bonad Fox Maria L. Fraser. White G. T.
Affirmed. Bickneli, C.
| VIM. Fl. Morrison vs.. Dempsey Seybold. Clay
| c. C. Affirmed Niblack j.
Wilson NJ Pickering VS.. Richard H, Cordng
! Tippecanoe C. c. Affirmed. Black, c.
Isaac S.WFight VS.. Margaret L. Nipple. Carroll
| c. &. Affirmed. Best G.
Henry G. Klnbe vs. John NJ. Seal. Union C
| G. Affirmed. Franklin, G.
| Commodore Wood vs. The State. Allen c. c
Reversed. Elliott, j.