The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-07-02
SUPREME CoURT-JUNE 80.

PLEADIHG-CRoss-CoM OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
959S. VIM F. Collins VS.. Ellen McDufie Han
cock c. c.
Elliott, IA CROSSE complaint which shows the
cross complainant to be the owner in fee Of the
property in controversy and that the plaintiff is
asserting title thereto, but has none, is good on
demurrer. Where a party seeks reversal on
on the ground that a special finding of facts Is
Insufficient to support the conclusions of law
stated by the court, he must in his brief point
out the reasons why the conclusions of the law
are erroneous. This court will not act upon
general statement of counsel that the finding
does not support the conclusions. Judgment
affirmed.
PROCEEDINGS SUPPLEMENTARY TO EXECUTION.
10,o33. Rachel Wallace VS.. Peter c. Lawyer
ct al. Hamilton g. C.
Hammond, J.-UBder section 500, r. s., 1891,
governing proceedings supplementary to ex-
ecution, no pleadings are contemplated,
and where's an answer was filed bat
in overruiing demurrer to the answer and sus-
tanning the demurrer to the reply was harmless.
This court ia required to overlook defects IN the
proceedings where the merits Of the cause have
been fairly determined (Sec. 65S, r, g.; SO Ind,
223) Appellants charged in their petition that
the execution defendants had property sntt1-
cient TO satisfy the Judgment, but concealed the
same so that 1t could not ne seized upon eKecu-
ton. The only property shown TO belong TO the
defendants was real estate owned by lawyers
and no reason appears why an execution would
not reach it without resort to the present pro-
ceeding. Judgment affirmed
HABEAs coRPUs-PARENT AND CHILD.
MargOwski. Carroll c. G.
Howk, J.-Thls was q habeas corpus proceeding
by the appellee to obtain possession OF his child.
The girls mother died when she wa only q few
weeks old. About the time the defen-
dants infant child died and at the request of the
defendant and his wife (sinee deceaeed) the lat
ter took the child to he nurtured by his wife, and
she has since remained with him, being now
eleven years old. Both men sober and indus
triCus, depending on their daily labor for sup
porr, and both sincerely attached to the
child. The piatBtiff married again aud his wife
is kind TO his other children ana suitable to I'LL
the place of mother to the girl. The plaintiff is
a Catholic, and the defendant Protestant.
Under this evidence the court did not err In
awarding the custody of the child to the plain
tiff. Other things being equal, the father is en-
titled 10 the possession and control OF the child
IS against other claimants. (5l Ind, 4S4; % id,
495; 4 A and E., ga; 3 i'd, 441l The applica-
tion for q writ OF tabeas corpus is not civil
action i23 Ind, 204l The return TO il is not the
subject OF demurrer but may be tested
by exception. (25 Ind, III; r. g., sec. 1,117.)
The right of trial by jury does not apply to it.
al Ind, 92l Judgment affirmed.
The following cases were also decided today,
abstracts of which will appear hereafter
Franklin watkins va. John W. DeArmond.
Vanderburg, s. G. Affirmed Elliott, J.
Jos. ]. Irwin VS.. Mnas Lowe, Bartholomew
c. c. Affirmed. collars. j.
VIM, NJ Williams State, rel. Roberts.
Jackson g. G. Affirmed Elliott. j.
ADDITIONAL RULE.
The following addition to rule "a has been
made:
"When n reheariug is granted the order grant
ing 1t shall not have the effect of setting aside
the submlssion of the cause, unless otherwise
turned to the files of the clerks office, and the
cause shall stand for hearing a submitted
cause, and will be advanced for early hearing
as of course upon the motion OF either party