The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-27
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-May a6, 1885.
POINTS OF DECISIONS.

-
makes it an offense to do this or that or another
thing, mentioning several things disiunctively,
either one of which would constitute one and
the same offense, subject to one and the same
punishment it is the general rule that all the
things mentioned may be charged conJunctvely
in single count Of indictment as constr
tuting but single offense. T. Whether or
not house is of designation or prostitution,
is question of fact. g. A single act OF volun-
tary sexual intercourse between an unmarried
woman ard male person does not make the
woman prostitute under Section 2003 Rode
baugh VS.. Hollingsworth 6 Ind, 339. and Alcorn
VS.. Hooker. Backf, 3d. Distinguished
No. 11184. The School Town of Monticello VS..
George Fl. Grant ct al. Cass c. c. Affirmed.
Niblack, J.-Suit to recover for school furniture
sold by appellees. The original complaint was
against 1.-THE Town of Monticello, a corporation
for school purposes" afterwards it was amended
so as to describe the defendant as the School
Town of Monticello" 1t is claimed that the
amended complaint was the substitution of q
hence was the commencement OF new action
against another defendant more than six years
after the cause of action had accrued. Held:
That it was clearly inferrable from the facts
averred in the original complaint, as well as
from persons upon whom process was served,
that the defendant was sued as school corpora
ton; that the amendment did not change the
nature of the action, and that it had relation
back to the time when the complaint was filed.
t2.) When, in such case, sale is for cash, and
securities icounty bonds) which void, or
prove to be void are taken in payment, the
creditor may sue and recover ON the original
cause of action. Whether the taking of the
bonds constituted payment is question for the
the jury
No. 1926. Vigo Agricultural Society vs..
James r. Brumfeld Vigo S. C. Affirmed.
Elliott id An agricultural association which
invites persons to supply articles to enable it to
conduct an exhibition, agreeing to take care of
them, is bailee for him and responsible for loss
caused by its negligence ~ demurrer to
evidence admits all the facts proved, the ex
| istence of all facts which there is evidence tend
| ing to establish. and all reasonable differences
| which may be drawn from the facts and the
| evidence. Everything will be taken against the
party demurring which the evidence tends to
| prove including every fair inference to be drawn
| from the evidence. On demurrer there Is no
| weighing of evidence; all differences against
demurring party, and where there is conflict,
| evidence favorable to him cannot be considered
| (3 Where party publishes offer to the world,
| and before it is withdrawn another acts upon 1t
| and PERFORMS the act required of him by the
| party who issued the advertisement, the con-
| tract is complete; so. if agricultural assocla-
ton agrees that it will keep efficient police
| force on the grounds day and night to take care
| of articles exhibition" and the evidence
shows its failure to do so, it is liable to an ex-
hibiter who acted on the faith of the advertise
| ment.
| Porter G. C. Reversed. Mitchell, G. Jap
| pelee without cause or prOvocation knocked one
| Carbon down in a saloon, seized and threw him
! through screen door. Carbon received
| wound on one of his thumbs from which clock
| Jaw" ensued and he died. Held: That an instruc-
tion charging that if the jury was convinced be-
| yond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
unlawfully committed assault and battery upon
deceased without any intention or purpose to
! kill him. but thereby inflicted wound by which
deceased died, the defendant is guilty of invol-
| untary manslaughter, should nave been given.
Held also: That an instruction charging that the
| assault and battery must be such that the known
or probable effect Of it would naturally be to
produce serious bodily harm Or endanger the life
! Of the person attacked in order to make involun-
tary manslaughter was erroneous.
No 1928 j. w. Glidden VS.. David H. Hen
| ry. Henry G. G. Reversed collars, IA
| promissory rote $3.50. New Castle, Ind.
/ April IA, 1883. Twelve months after date we
or either of us promise to pay to the order of
George w. Nugen, jr., $3.50, with interest at the
rate OF seven per cent per annum after date until
paid and attorneys fees, value received, without
any relief whatever from valuation appraise-
ment laws, with eight per cent. interest from
| maturity. The drawers and indorsers severally
/ waive presentment for payment, protest and no
tice of protest and non payment of this note, and
| further expressly agree that the payee his
| assigns may extend the time of payment there
| of from time to time indefinitely, as he or they
may see fit, and receive interest in advance or
otherwise from the maker or indorsers for any
extension or forbearance so made Negotiable
\ and payable at the Citizens State Bank,
\ New Castle. j. W. Glidden," has definite
| time fixed for maturity, as the parties may
| extend the time of payment indefinitely,
! they may agree, and is therefore uncertain and
| not negotiable.
| No. 1868 The Carthage Turnpike Company
vs. Joseph O. Andrews. Henry c. c. Affirmed
collars, J.--Q) Action by appellee for injuries
received on defective bridge of appellant. Wit
nesses acquainted with plaintiff, and who had op
| portunity to observe his appearance before and
after the injury are competent to state as to his
y,hv ar 10 fyUn indc
| Questions Of that import were permitted to be
| answered and there was no error, as they are
| fairly within the rule that non-experts may,
after testifyng to the facts as far possible,
tending ply scians as to his condition and suffer
| ing at times between the date of injury and
| bringing of suit was competent. g. An aft
davit for continuance stating that there was an
absent witness Ia physician) to whom plaintiff
had stated his physical unsoundness before the
injury, does not show cause. A physician
| not divulge communications made by patient
No 1870. VIM. III. Mech VS.. VIM Lawan.
Grant G. c. Reversed. Nback Appellee
sued appellant upon covenants of warranty.
Appellant answered that subsequent to the con-
veyance he had been discharged in bankruptcy.
Appellee replied an express promise by appel
iant who agreed to pay the damage he had sus
tanned after his (appelants) discharge The
promise was in the words: II do not intend YOU
shall lose it. Twill make it all right Held:
That the promise was not clear distinct and un-
equivocal enough to revive the discharged debt
No. 1908. Isaac Hays ct al VS. Catharne
Regar Marion s. c. Affirmed. Mitchell G.
IA and wife conveyed lot to b. to hold the
title for the benefit of A, VINO remained in pos.
session. Afterwards by AS directions the lot
was conveyed by to AS wife, Before the lat
ter conveyance creditor of B had obtained
judgment against him and now he asks that it
he satisfied out of the proceeds of the lot Held:
In the absence of fraud parol evidence was
admissible to show the existence of the executed
parol trust against the Judgment creditor.
No 1920. Joshua L. Fatout vs. The Board of
School Commissioners of the City of Indianapo-
lis ct al Marion s. c. Affirmed Howk. j
ct hr annellant 70 racnyar