The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-28
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS
United States District Court.
hon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
To-day-No special calls.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
The following decisions were rendered Oct. 27
11736. Calvin Tucker ct al VS.. VIM. Conrad.
Kosciusko, c. C.. Affirmed. Howk, 1.-THE
finding shows that there was no intention to ded
cate the land in controversy to public high
way by the owner or his grantorS,
near or remote. Evidentiary facts tend
ing to prove an intended dedication
or from which such dedication might
possibly be presumed are not of themselves such
an intended dedication. e. The owner of an
uninclosed and unimproved lot In a city, who
knows OF and passlvely acquiesces in the use by
the public of such lot or part thereof for street
purposes until such time as he may be able and
willing to inclose the same. does not thereby
dedicate the same to public purposes.
1908. August Gortemiller George Rosen-
gam ct al. Ripley c. g. Reversed. Niblack,
IA church ordered, bya majority vote, its
trustees joining in. that certain repairs to its
edlfice be made. The contract was let, the re-
pairs made, and a mechanics lien was filed to
get payment On suit to foreclose the church
answered that the condition of the contract was
that the payment was to be made within one
year by voluntary contributions. Held: No
defense to the suit to foreclose the lien.
1880 The City of North Vernon VS. Mary
Voegler Jennings G. G. Reversed. Elliott
J.-Q) municipal corporation is not liable for
errors in judgment in devising plan for the
improvement of streets, but there is liability
when the lack of care and skill in devising the
plan is so great as to constitute negligence. "
Where there is one cause of action all the dam
ages must he recovered in one suit and for
fresh damages, resulting from the original
wrong, second action cannot be maintained
3D. When the cause of action is negligence and
unskillfulness of the officers of a municipal
corporation in the improvement of street, the
injury is complete and permanent, constituting
but one cause of action, and in suit on that
cause of action all damages present and
prospective, may be recovered and for fresh
| damages resulting from the improvement Sec
ond action will not lie
1928. Sarah Mayhem VS.. James Burns AL
len >. T.. Reversed. Mitchell, &. J.-(I) A
parent who sustains injury by the death of his
infant son has remedy for such injury in
| damages under Section 266. Revised Statutes.
and damages so recovered belong to the parent,
and are not distributable under Section 284,
which provides that the personal representatives
of the deceased may maintain an action, and the
damages recovered are to inure to the
benefit of his next of kin. ~ A
married woman is liable for her torts
estate 81 The evidence showed that plaintiff
was widower that he was blacksmith; that
his sister-in Jaw, competent person, had charge
of his household; that he had been informed of
the dangerous nature of an excavation on a lot
close to his own and extending to his; that he
had given notice; that one of his children had
fallen into it, but rescued; that at the time
the child drowned had fallen into the hole the
housekeeper wass engaged in necessary duties,
and had temporarily permitted it to 60
OF an elder sister. In this state of
the evidence the plaintiff was asked to answer
the question: Tell the jury what property you
own" He answered: II have no property. | am
a poor man, and was not able to employ anybody
else to take care of my children" Held That
the pecuniary condition of the plaintiff was not
to be considered whether or not he was guilty
of contributory negligence, and that the admis-
sion or the testimony was error. Where one
knows of danger which threatens injury to him
self, or those-to whom he is bound to afford pro-
lection, if by reasonable eXertion he can avert
such injury and negligenty omits to do so, he
cannot recover damages.
. 124O6. Joseph A. Thomas VS.. the State Fay
cite, G. Z. Affirmed collars, J.-Prosecution
for mailing obscene letter. o. The word
paper" as used in Sec. 1897, r. S., 1881, which
makes the sending of obscene matter through
the mails an offense includes written or printed
matter and an obscene letter falls within the
terms of the statute. e.. 1t is not settled in
this State whether, in an indictment for mailing
obscene matter, it is necessary to set the matter
in haec verba, but where it is alleged that
the title is of the following substance, purport
tenor and effect, and of which the following
words and figures, except as herein otherwise
stated and explained, is substantially true
copy then setting out the letter in full, with the
omission of few words that were illegible, it
sufficiently appears that the copy is substan-
ness who had received letters from the defend
ant about the time the one the prosecution was
based upon was received, can testify as to the
genulneness of the handwriting of the defend
ant H. A witness who shows himself to be
acquainted with another's handwriting
may, before or at the trial. re-
fer to papers in his possession
which he knows to be in the handwriting of the
other to refresh his memory before testifyng
a. 1t is not error to allow to be read to the
jury another letter of like import written by the
defendant as showing guilty knowledge and in
tent on his part (6.) In prosecution under
this statute there must be substantial variance
between the copy and letter offered in evidence
to be fatal. ~ A defendent who goes on the
witness stand voluntarily and denies the crime.
valves his constitutional privilege and renders
himself liable to be cross examined upon all facts
relevant to the issue.
q 11756. Robert u. Lockridge VS. n. c. Darnall,
ct al Putnam @. c. Dismissed.
To-day: In consultation