The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-26
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-ApriI rs.

Hon Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice.
wILL-woRDs OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
10259 Thomas Lennen ct al VS.. Mary Craig ct al.
Hammond 1.-THE will of Peter Lennen devised
his estate to his children the share of Louisa Ellis to
descend to her and her children after her free from
and beyond any control of her husband" etc. Appel
lants claim through conveyance made by said Louisa
and her husband in her lifetime. The question is
whether Louisa took life estate fee simple inter-
under the will. While the language is nexact the
meaning is that Louisa should take under the will
from the testator and her children after her death
should hold by descent from her Itwas not intended
that her children should take under the will but
should hold as heirs of their mother. The manifest
purpose of the testator was that Louisa should hold
the land free of the debts of her husband and that he
should have part in its inheritance at her death
An estate which at common law was ad
to be fee simple (Section 295S R. s. Taking the
whole will together it is manifest that the testator in
tended to give his daughter as well as his other chill
dren, a fee simple interest. Judgment reversed.
LIBELoUs IAIPUTATIoNs-JU JUSTIFICATION.
1892. Frank Hake Louis Brames Allen S. c.
Bicknell c. C.-Appellee sued appellant for libel in
writing letter in which he said Of the appellee: 81
one time as a book-keeper He is a liar / would NOT
believe him under OATH Each of these three sets of
words is libelous, for they each contain an imputa
1871 68 Ind 538; SO id. 1879 The answer un
dertakes to justify by alleging that the plaintiff did
lie in a certain publication made by him. Conceding
that the charge He is liar is justified by averrng
single act of lying, the does not justify the
other imputations. As it pleaded to the whole
complaint, it insufficient. az Ind, 1O3 50 i'd
571.) Judgment affirmed
TAX sALE-INJUNCTIoN.
11164 City of Logansport VS.. Robert Carroll Cass
c. c.
Colerick C-Action by appellee to enjoin appellant
from selling certain real estate for city taxes alleging
that the taxes due from Leonard former owner
of the land and that Leonard had and continued to
have personal property out of which the taxes could
have been collected. The personal property of one
against whom taxes assessed mustrst be exhausted
before his real estate be sold against his consent
for their PAYMENT (S6 Ind 545D The evidence
strongly tends to show that the taxes paid before
the action was brought. Judgment affirmed.
REVIEW OF JUDGAtENT-E vIDENCE-PRACTICE.
1O961 Peoria, ETC., Railway Company VS.. John
Flicker, administrator. Vanderburg @. @.
Best, C.-Action by appellant to review judgment
for error of law apparent in the record. The com
plant that full transcript of the evedence
given the trial is filed Herewith
and that the evidence is not sufficient to support
the judgment. The exhibit fled with the complaint
simply purports to be the senographers report of the
evidence which was not made part of the record by
be considered. (64 Ind, 216 II i'd, BOG; 50 i'd,
340). In the absence of the evidence it cannot be
said that the instructions given were necessarily
erroneous. Judgment affirmed.
The following cases were also decided, of which
abstracts will appear hereafter.
1Os95 Jonathan Broadway vs. Polly Waddell
Henry G. @. Reversed. Elliott, J.
10969 Thomas B. Reeder Elias Nay. Henry
G. G. Reversed Franklin, c.
11153 Ehz. Hamilton VS.. Henry Barricklow
Ohio c. O. Affirmed in part. Franklin, @.
1855 Edwin Porter Samuel L. jackson.
Decater G. @. Reversed. collars, j.
10000 John Shultes VS.. Cyrus H. Keiser. Whit
ley 9: 9. Petition to reinstate overruled. Best G.
1896 Adam Ketung vs. Martin Hlobold.
Kosciusko O. G. Rehearing denied,
1O011 Nathan Moore vs. P. II. Boyd: Hancock
G. O. Rehearing denied
lilo Alfred Wright VS.. Eva Mack Elkhart c:
G.. Rehearing denied.
w Fl. paL, T,a C+a4a.
&C Rehearing denied