The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-01
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-Jan. 81.
m. william A. Woods, Chief Justice.


SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT-BILL TO REVIEW.
$500 Stephen G. Lee vs.. Jonas Basey. Tip
ton c. c.
Woods, c. j "A complaint to be relieved from
a Judgment, under section 90 of the code, should
SHOW upon what cause OF action the Judgment
from which relief is sought was rendered, and
the allegation that the con- plaiut was 'for the
sum or $500" does not show whether the demand
was upon II contract or for tort. In such case,
where the evidence concerning the plaintiffs al
legged excuse for suffering default is conflicting
tins court cannot say that the right conclusion
was not reached. In an action against JOINT con
tractors, where al! have been served with pro
cess, the dismissal or the action as to one might
DE ground for a plea in abatement, but affords
no cause for setting aside the Judgment as to the
Others upon hlll for review. IL Is not erro ,r
apparent IN the record II 1t does not appear Due
that the party had died since the service of sum
mons (35 Ind, 293) Judgment affirmed
CoMPLAINT-UNCERTAIN
10,101. Robert J. Oliver VS.. Emma Gorbam.
Lagrange G. c.
Niblack J.-Action by appellee for services
rendered appellant in caring for his wife and
child In their last illness. Appellee might have
been properly required to make her complaint
more certain and specific in some respects, but
the bill OF particulars supplied some OF the
omissions; and considering it in the nature of a
common court in assumpsit, it was sufficient on
demurrer. e Chitty Plead. 49, Judgment af-
firmed
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. BAIL-ExEMPTIoN
1o,l66 John Maloney vs.. Nancy L. Newton.
Hendricks c. G.
ElliOtJ.-The question presented is whether a
resident householder who becomes repleviu
bail in a bastardy Judgment is entitled TO the
benefit OF exemption. The right to exemption is
one which the debtor cannot waive by contract.
C22 MY, 249; 20 Iowa, 376; 7 Wis, 500. The
undertaking replevin bail is contract.
The bail becomes a surety Is Ind, 1921 and is
entitled to subrOgatiOn GA Ind, 565| Release
Of lien will release the bail as any other
surety t79 Ind $40. No waiver therefore.
arises from the undertaking itself. Does the
law de prive the bail in such case of his exemp-
tion3 He is guilty of no wrong 10 becoming bail
and nnithaF fha constitution afatutpR. nor
public policy requires the debtor and those de-
peudent upon him to be stripped of thor support.
Prosecutions for hastardy are civil proceedings
IA Ind, 1929, and the undertaking is therefore
in a civil ana not in a criminal prosecution. As
the liability of the bail arises out of contract, 1t
must be held that he is entitled to his exemption.
Judgment reversed.
STATE PRIsoN-woMAN's REFoRMAToRY--coN-
sPIRAcY-EvIDENcE.
1o,474. Ellen " Walton vs.. The State Deca-
Howk. J.-Appellant was convicted as an &C.
cessory before the fact to the murder OF
prisOnment for hfe in the WOman's ReformatOry.
The trial occurred after the laws of 1881 were In
force, and it is claimed that there was law
then In force authorizing said punishment.
Under the law OF 1881 the only Imprisonment
provided for in capital cases is in the State
prison, but the Ref0rmatory for women is as
much a State prison either OF the other ones
The provisions of section 16 of the act of 1869,
establishing such refOrmatOry are not therefore
repealed by the act of 1881. There was evidence
tending to show the existence of a conspiracy
between Garrsti, Frazer and appellant for the
murder of Walton, and on the theory that such
conspiracy existed, the declarations of Garretr,
before the murder took place, aud having an
apparent reference thereto, though made in
appellants absence, were admissible in evidence
against her. Il Greenl. Ev, Sll1; Ga Ind, 473;
AZ i'd, $685. Facts and circumstances tending
to show an adulterous connection between ap-
pellant and Garrett were also properly admitted.
supplying a motive for the crime. appel
liant having testified in her own behalf.
witness for the State testified that the general
moral character of the appellant was bad, and
on cross examination of the witness the court
weuld not permit him to answer the question
whether he would believe appellant under oath.
The question presented has not been squarely
decided in any previous decision Of this court,
but ii must be held that the question was prop
erly excluded See Ind, 405: 43 i'd, 1873; 60
ID. 40l; l.. s., 1881, section sos, 1903. The
Judgment against appellant seems TO nave been
tempered with mercy. Judgment affirmed.