The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-16
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS
Supreme COurt-Feb. II.
Hon. Geo. V. How1. Chief Justice.
Observation-Disclosures.

HIGHWAYS-DA MAGES-PETITION.
1920. Isaac Watson vs. Francis NJ Cransore
Howard G. c.
Best, C.-In proceeding for the location of high
way evidence as to the amount Of new fence the
parties would be required to build and its cost and
the quantity of land taken from each and its value
though undisputed, does not bind limit the jury in
assessing the damages. The benefits conferred are
also to be considered. (S4 Ind, 1860 And these
may equal the difference between the damages assessed
and the estimates of witnesses as to the amount of
such damages. A petition which describes the petit
TONERS citizens Of the county without alleging that
they resident freehoders their right to in
stute the proceedings, and though the averment is
defective, the defect will be cured by verdict al
Ind So; rs i'd, 417) Judgment affirmed.
RY-INTERRoG MISUNDERSTANDING POLICY
BENEFICIARY.
10377. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany VS.. Isaac Hermann. Vanderburg c. G.
collars, J.lf the answer of the jury to an interrog
atory uncertain the remedy is to have it referred
back to the jury for more specific answer Ind:
insurance is made payable to a creditor of the in
sured the company cannot raise the question whether
the debt of the insured was within the statute of
frauds or barred by the statute of limitations. bliss
ms, sec. 2S; n Ind l. 81 id, 531.l The province
of heterogeneous propounded to the jury is to call for
answers upon questions of fact, and not as TO evil
dence of facts. as Ind, 264) In the absence of
the evidence instruction will not be pronounced
erroneous if under any supposabe state Of the evil
dence it could have been correctly given. 80 Ind,
245D Judgment affirmed.
FORMER NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1896, Adam Kitring VS.. Martin Hiabold. Kosci-
Black C.-Appellee sued appellant to recover
money due him from firm which had been composed
of himself and appellant. On the trial appellant
offered to prove that appellee at time received
1925 of firm money which he applied to his individual
The evidence excluded because it appeared
that in former action between appellee and hitring
q Co., firm composed of appellant and his SON. Kit
ring q Co. not allowed credit for said sum, as
claimed by them in that suit. This was error. 1t
might well be that the evidence which would support
the claim in favor of appellant alone would not sup
port in favor of himself jointly with his The for
mer adjudication could not work estoppel if the
evidence relevant the issues in this suit not
relevant TO the issues in the former. q Sumner, 2O)
Judgment reversed
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1864. Samuel Terry William Shively. Mar
shall G. G.
Colerick, C.-Where a witness denies having testi-
fed differently in a former action, at former trial
Of the action, he cannot be contradcted by bill
of exceptions which purports to contain all the evil
az md, 36s; Sc i'd, 1897 Special instructions
must be presented to the court before the
ment of the argument, otherwise the party present
secs 553 and 534 10 Ind, SSs.) Although iudg
ment for costs without relief may be improper, if no
motion is made in the court below to correct
Pr, 26si IS Ind 455; So i'd, $50 y i'd, 1901
Judgment affirmed
Observation-Disclosures
1923. David Houser VS.. The State ex rel LantH
Huntington g. c.
Hammond J.-Prosecution for bastardy While
the evidence conflicting, it sufficient to
tain the verdict Letters of appellant to reatrx
shown to be in his writing but were not put in evil
dence. This not error their Introduction in
evidence was not demanded by him. An admission
made by appellant that he the father of the child
put in evidence, but when it shown that the
admission made in effort to compromise, the
court directed the jury to disregard it, This direction
cured any of which the appellant complain.
judgment affirmed