The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-22
A QUIETUS FOR MR.. GEIGER.
A Verdict for the Defendant in the
Twenty-Fitth Ward Case.
fudge Taylor Rules that the Disputed Ter
ritOry Has Never Been Legally
Annexed to the City.

Sourbeer inspector of the third precinct, TWEEN
ty-ffth ward at the city election for 80 900, on
account of the defendants refusal to receive the
plaintiffs vote, came to an abrupt termination
in Judge 'Taylor's court yesterday. Hig-
gins lived in that disputed territory
in the southwestern portion of the city, from
which votes were received at the city election,
on the ground that it had never been properly
annexed Higgins brought suit for damages, and
precisely the same points were at issue as in the
Geiger- Pattison contest for the city treasurers
Office All the evidence was heard, and Judge
Taylor instructed the jury to find for the de-
PENDANT his ruling being as follows:
I. To entite the plaintiff to a verdict in this
case the following points must be established by
the evidence:
First-That there was an election held in the
city of indianapolis on the 9th day of October,
1888, to elect officers for said city, as charged in
the complaint.
Second-That the defendant, John Sourbeer
was the inspector of the said election in the third
precinct of the Twenty-fifth ward of said city,
and acted there as such inspector.
Tlird-That the plaintiff was legally entitled
to vote at the said election in the said third pre-
cinct of said ward.
Fourth-That the plaintiff did present himself
at the polls in said precinct at the said election
and offer to vote or request the defendant to
take his ticket and deposit it in the ballot box.
Fifth-That the defendant, upon such offer or
request being made by the plaintiff, did wrong
fully and malicously reject the plaintiffs vote
and ref use to take and deposit his ticket in the
ballot box, whereby the plaintiff was diprived of
the exercise of his legal right to vote at said
election If either one of these points is not
established the claim of the plaintiff in this case
fails, and the verdict must be for the defendant
II. l am warranted by the evidence and the ad
mission of the parties in saying to you that there
is no controversy or dispute over the first two
points stated There was general election i'll
the city of indianapolis on the 9th day of Octo
ber 1883, for the election of officers of the city
of indianapolis, as charged in the complaint; and
the defendant, John SOurbeer, was the inspector
of that election in the third precinct of the
Twenty-ffth ward of said city The third point
and the important one, comes neXt-was the
plaintiff legally entitled to vote at that election9
There is no dispute as to his being of sufficient
age and possessed of every qualification to en-
title him to vote except that Of residence in terri
tory within. and under the corporate juris-
diction Of the city of indianapolis q To entitle
him to vote at said election he must at the time
have resided on territory within and under the
corporate jurisdiction of said city. That was a
necessary and Indispensable requisite. That at
the time of said election the plaintiff resided on
territory which was not within the boundaries
of the said city as originally established, and not
embraced within any of the charters OF said city
subsequently enacted is not questioned He
was not then, at the time of said election, resd4
ing within or under the corporate iursdic-
ton of said city unless the territory
on which he then resided had been,
in some legal manner, brought under
the corporate jurisdiction of said city Had it
been so brought under such jurisdiction9
+ Ill The statute provides two ways or methods
by which territory outside the corporate limits
and contiguous thereto can be annexed to the
city and brought within its jurisdiction, and
thereby confer upon the inhabitants thereof the
rights of citizens of such corporation and impose
upon them its burdens. The first is, by resolu
6 D.,
men. where such contiguous territory has
been laid off and plated into lots The
second, when it has not been plated
and laid off into lots, by petition
to the Board of County Commissioners and
action thereon by such board pursuant to the
statute These are the meth DDS provided by
which corporate jurisdiction of the city can be
acquired. There is no evidence tending to show
that either of these methods has been pursued
by the city of indianapolis in relation to the
territory where the plaintiff resided or that
attempt to annex that territory by either mode
was ever entered upon by the corporate authori-
ties of the city of indianapolis. ...., . +.-. ...
". 1t is claimed by the plaintiff that because
all of the tracts of land territory surrounding
this particular territory on which the plaintiff
resided has been annexed to and brought under
the corporate jurisdiction Of the city, and be-
cause Of certain other acts shown to have been
done and permitted to be done by the officers of
said city indifferent times, this PARTICULAR tract
or parcel of territory called during this trial the
disputed territory, mas also passed under the
corporate jurisdiction of the city; but instruct
you that the city cannot acquire juris
diction over one tract or parcel
of territory by acquiring it over tract or terri
tory or adjacent thereto. Before the
city can acquire jurisdiction over particular
tract territory it must undertake to extend its
jurisdiction over such particular tract or parcel
of land by annexing it to and including it within
and under its jurisdiction, IN the manner provid-
ed by law. 1 will not say that a case might not
he made where, by the continuous action for a
series of years of the corporate authority in
asserting jurisdiction over particular terri
tory tract contiguous to or bordering
on the the corporate bounds and acquieScence or
on the part of the inhabitants of such territory,
rights might obtain giving the municipality con
troll and the inhabitants the right to exercise the
privileges of citizens of the municipality but
there is no evidence here authorizing such an in
ference to such extent as to submit the question
of matter of fact, whether it has been brought
within and under the corporate jurisdiction of
the city, nor iustifying me in instructing you. as
matter of law, that an annexation of this dis
puted territory has taken place, so as to admit
of corporate jurisdiction, or to confer upon the
plaintiff the rights of a citizen resident within
and subject to the corporate jurisdic
ton of the city of Indianapo-
lis. Hence, as the city of Indianapolis
has never by any resolution or act of the Com
mon Council necessary to that end, nor by any
petition to the Board of Commissioners, annexed
this particular tract parcel of territory to and
brought it within the corporate jurisdiction of
said city, and has never exercised such acts over
it as were legally necessary to the requirement
of municipal or corporate authority over it,
instruct you, as matter OF law IN this case
that the plaintiff did not at the time of the
municipal election on the 9th day of October
1888 reside within and under the corporate juIis-
dctiOn of the city of indianapolis, and that he
was not entitled to vote at the said election.
Hence instruct you to return your verdict in
this case for the defendant.