The Indianapolis journal., 1883-04-20
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record, Thursday.
Full Abstract of the Opinions Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.
Supreme Court-April 10.
Hon. William A. Woods. Chief Justice.

a
PRACTICE-HARMLEss ERROR.
5,693. Henry @. olds vs. Hiram Moderwell.
Black, C.-Complaint by appellant for the cla
solution of an alleged partnership between MIN
self and one Fowler, and to restrain the sale of
the hrm property on a Judgment against Fowler
individually. The only question is to the suf-
ticiency of the second paragraph of Moderwell's
answer. The court instructed the jury that il
they found that no partnership in fact existed,
as alleged in the complaint, it would be their
swer of general denial In answer to interrog-
atortes, the jury explicitly found that no part
the second paragraph OF answer was not consid-
cred by them. (R. 8. 1881, sec. 345) Judgment
affirmed.
CHURCH OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
9,73o. John s. Petty VS.. Church of Christ.
Franklin. C.-where a subscription for the
bnilding of church provided that the house
should he DO by 90 feet, an allegation in the
complaint was thai a house was erected for the
purpose designated and was used regularly by
said church, there being no general allegation
that the plaintiff mad performed all the cOncl-
tiens OF the agreement on its part, the complaint
was not sufficient to show that the condition
precedent had been complied with. In order to
show good cause of action the plaintiff must
aver that the house erected was substant italy of
M the SIZE required by the subscription: (34 Ind,
319; i'd, Az; 43 i'd, 41S) Judgment re Yersed.
Elliott, j., and Howk, j., dissent
sLANDER-PUBLIcAT1oN N-ADM1ssIoN.
Marion G c.
Morris, C.-The sending of a letter containing
libelOus matter to the party DETAINED, where no
third person hears or reads it, Is not Sufficient
publication to support an action for SANDER.
add Torts., $50; Starkle, SO; Gaines R.. 591.)
Nor are the words 81 did say that you stole my
WATCH" actionabe. They do not constitute
present charge of larceny, but are simply an adj
mission of making such a charge IN the past. In
such case the party must sue for the words
previously spoken and the admission
proof. (Odgers Libel and Slander, 230; NJ &
Al a. In1r nnnf QtH HrTnG cd
DEMURRER FOR DEFECT OF PARTIEs-sURETIEs.
10,417. Perry Williams VS.. The State ex rel.
Carroll c. G.
Elliott, IA demurrer for defect of parties
must name the omitted party. works Prac.,
sec. 4S3) In a suit against the surety on o bond
given by deceased commissioner TO sell real
estate ~ Is not necessary TO make the represen-
tative of the deceased principal a party to tho
action. The fact that the commissioner had
transferred the notes received in payment for
the land sold by him, which ne had no authority
to do, does not free the surety from liability.
Judgment affirmed
TELEGRAPH coMPANIEs-sTATUToRY PENALTY.
1o3S7. Western Union Telegraph Company
VS.: Jay II. Adams. Tippecanoe c. G.
zoners, lin an action for the statutory pen
atty for failure TO deliver telegraphic message,
the fact that the message was written upon a
blank OF the company which provided that the
company should not be liable for the non-deiiv-
cry of any unrepeated message, whether hap
pentng by the negligence of it's servants or 9TH
erwise beyond the amount received for sending
the same, Will not defeat the action. The com
pany has no power TO make and enforce such a
contract and thus defeat the object of the stat
ute. (35 Ind, 429; 40 i'd, 53) Judgment af-
firmed.
Observation-Disclosures TO MAKE LEASE.
9,971. George Philips VS.. Aurora Lodge, 1.
o. q. T. Dearborn c. c.
Bicknell, C.-The trustees OF two lodges of
knights of Pythias Jointly occupying a hall
leased the SANE to appellee for one year,
to be used by it one night in each
week week. Al appellants p Iladh,a claim tnat the
trustees to make that said lodges were not au-
thorized by law 10 hold property for the pur-
pose of renting the same for profit.
Held: The lease was fairly within the author
ity of the trustees and bound the lodges they
represented. Judgment affirmed
sHERIFFs sALE-NoN-R N-REDEMPTIoN--NorIcE
1882. Lewis Maddux VS.. John j. Watkins.
Henry G. G.
HOwk, J.-There fs no provision in the redeinp-
ton law of 1861 which requires the holder of a
certificate of purchase to demand a deco at any
time after the expiration of the year for re-
demption, and an assignee of the certificate may
enforce the execution OF proper deed by the
dealing with the land are bound to know from
the records the fact of such sale, and If the record
does not disclose any redemption they are put
upon inquiry in regard to the fact OF redemption
and have no right to assume that there was
a, redemption, although eleven years have
elapsed from the date of the sheritf's sale and
the execution of the certificate OF purchase
Judgment reversed.
POWERS OF COUNTY OVER BRIDGES.
10,4l0 Commissioners of Rush County vs.
Rushville, etc, Gravel-road Company. Rush
c. G.
Woods, G. J.-Where n gravel-road company
releases TO the county all right and title to
bridge upon its line of road, and the county I'M
dertakes thereafter to keep the bridge in repair
for The use of the public, and i'll case a new
bridge is built by the county the grave-road
company will make the fills and build the ap-
proaches thereto, the contract is not beyond the
power of the county to make. Such contract i'm
poses no obligation upon the county different
from the duties imposed by law in respect TO
bridges generally. The manifest design of the
parties is that the company shall be relieved
from responsibility, and that the county
shall have charge of this as of other
public bridges The appellee also had power to
TO bind itself TO pay the cost of the approaches.
County boards are expressly empowered TO re-
ceive and appropriate all donations for the
tion and repair of bridges. Il r. s., 76, p, 239,
sec. 3; 55 Ind, 1l3) Judgment reversed.
The following cases were also decided:
$3.50 Kocher vs.. Christian. Huntington c.
c. Reversed. Morris, G.
1883. l.. L. e. W Railway Company VS.. Kin
sey Jay e. c. Affirmed Franklin, c.
9,643 Scotton VS.. Mann. Grant G. c, AT
frned. Bcknell, G.
9,189 Berghoif VS.. Mcdonald. Kosciusko C.
c.. RehearIng denied.
9,424 5imonton vs. Hayes. Blackford c. c.
Reversed. Black, @.
IO,047 Urbauski vs. Maus. Harrison c. C.
Affirmed Franklin, G.
Superior Court.
NJ Mo- u Tudo