The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-18
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-April II.
Hon. Geo. V. Howk, Chief Justice.

Hon. Geo. v. Howk, Chief Justice.
CRIMINAL NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
115S9. George Stultz VS.. The State. Green c. G.
collars. J.-Proseeution for selling liquor to a
minor. In a criminal prosecution an appeal can only
be taken by serving notice thereof on the prosecuting
attorney. e. s., Sec. 1879 For the failure to
serve such notice in this case the appeal is dismissed.
"a Ind, 553; SO i'd, 125; 50 id, IL
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. TO QUAsH-EvIDENoE.
11068. Eli Mathis VS.. The State. Warren G. G.
Howk, G. the record does not disclose in
direct terms whether or not the grand jurors were
freeholders of the county, if any of them were, in fact,
not freeholders, the defect cannot be reached by mo-
abatement. go Ind, 2S6; ST i'd, LA; SO id, 1887
Where the evidence IS conflicting this court will not
disturb the verdict on appeal, for want of evidence to
support it. Judgment affirmed.
MIsNoMER OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
1852. Sarah C. Morningstar VS.. VIM. D. Wiles ct
al. Morgan G.
Black, C-where the Christian names of the plaint-
ifs are not fully set out in the petition the defect is
not reached by demurrer. go Ind, I8I; 70 id, 100;
SO id, 49, Where the bill of exceptions shows that
some evidence was introduced on the trial which is
not set out in the bill, no question is presented as to
the sufhciency of the evidence to sustain the finding.
Judgment affirmed.
PUBLIC PRoPERTY-LIABILITY FOR STREET I'M
1898. Henry B. Lowe vs.. Commissioners How
ard County. Howard c. c.
Elliott, THE public square Of a county is prop
erty of a public nature held for governmental or pub
lie purposes. Is Ind, IVA; Pr. St., 2O3; 2 O. st,
1919 The general rule is that such property cannot
be sold under any legal process. az Ind, $40; 2
Dill Nun. Corp, secs. 576, SIT; 80 Ind, 100; YIN.
Y, 1881 This rule applies as well to seizures
for street assessments as to seizures under
any other legal process. Statutes like those relating
to street improvements, which are broad in their
terms and contain no exceptions, are to be understood
as operating upon property subject to ordinary legal
process, and not upon property devoted to public uses.
y Dill Nun. Corp, Sd ed, sec. SIT; SO Ind, 1851
Judgment affirmed.
OBJECTIONS TO NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
.10sS1: Elnathan D. Harvey VS.. David Huston.
Vigo G. G.
Franklin, C.-Evdence objected and excepted to
can not be brought to the attention of the trial court,
in a motion for a new trial, by reference to a bill of
exceptions, afterwards filed, containing it. And the
motion can not be aided by the bill of exceptions
which is afterwards filed. 4S Ind, 152; 81 i'd, 343;
" i'd, 14l.) Judgment affirmed.
The following cases were also decided, extracts Of
which will appear tomorrow:
1OS93. John B. Jones VS.. Oliver H. Swift. Fay.
cite Q. Q. Affirmed. Colerick, @.
11l42. James L. Morris VS. ex rel. Crawford.
Harrison &C. Affirmed. Best, c..
114l5. Chris. Cain VS.. August Coda. Pulaski G.
q. Affirmed. Bicknel, G. c..
11441. George e. Hopkins VS.. w. F. Goebel.
Washington Q. c, Appeal dismissed. Black, @.
derburg G. 9. Reversed. Bicknel, @ G.
pany VS.. Blankenship. Owen G. G.. Rehearing de-
MED.
1886. Charles L. Jewett VS.. ex rel. Howard, adj
ministrator. Scott c. G. Rehearing denied.
1857. Charles Hescheon VS.. John N. Scott.
Marion S. G. Rehearing denied,