The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-02-26
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court, Feb. 25. 1885.
POINTS OF DECISIONS.

No. 1865 Robert Strasson VS.. City of Fort
Wayne; Allen S. G. Reversed. Elliott, I'LL
In a suit to recover taxes paid upon land wrong
fully annexed to a city, the plaintiff is not
estopped because ne voted at II municipal cleo
ton, was candidate for municipal Office, or
united in petition for an improvement. ~
Where the annexed territory was not plated
into lots, the Common Council had no jurisdic-
ton. 1t belongs to the board of commissioners
(3) In such proceedings the answer or evidence
should show that the plaintiff reached substan-
tial benefit from the attempted annexation; that
it had been generally acquiesced in by the peo-
pie of the district attempted to be annexed; that
the city had incurred expense on the faith of the
annexation and acquiescence of the people. al
The court does not decide whether or not the
curative act of 1879 is unconstitutional; but
such act will not validate annexation proceedings
where ~ the order of annexation is made by
one tribunal in a case where another had exclu-
sive jurisdiction and t2) where notice to proper
ty owners was required.
No 1928. City of Aurora US. Mart Bitner,
ct al Dearborn c. G. Affirmed. Colefick, c.
IL 1t Is the duty of municipal corporation to
keep all of its streets in reasonably safe condi-
ton for travel so as not to endanger the persons
and property of those lawfully using them, and
they are liable for negiigently suffering them to
become unsafe. In this cass the appellee was
injured by failing upon defective gutter cross
ing. The complaint negatived contributory neg
ligence, and averred that the appellant City had
notice before the accident of the unsafe oondi-
ton OF the crossing and it was sufficient "a
Notice to the corporation of the unsafe condition
of street may be inferred from the length of
time 1t has existed as well as from other facts
and circumstances what length of time is sufi-
cent to charge the corporation with notice great
ly depends on the circumstances of the case, and
must, in most cases, be question of fact for the
jury.
No. 1923. Sarah Mayhem VS.. James Burns.
Allen S. G. Affirmed Bicknell, G. C.-Burns
was renter, living on q certain lot %. Appel
liant, married woman, owned lot % adjoining
Before Burns moved upon lot % pit had been
dug by appellants orders, close to the division
fence. 1t became full of water, the banks cayed
in, the fence fell down. and the pit was left I'M
covered after notice to make it safe. Burns's
two year-old child fell into the hole and was
drowned without any fault of the plaintiff or
of said child, and by reason of the unlawful
negligence of the defendants. Held. ID The
complaint alleging these facts was sufficient
when first attacked In this court ~ A wife is
liable for tort committed in the management
of her separate real estate Sec 512O r. S.
1881 (3.l An instruction telling the jury that
negligence could not be imputed to the plaintiff
because he did not go upon lot "a and fill up or
barricade the hole, and that it would have been
trespass which he was not bound to commit,
was not erroneous.
No, 1863 Jacob Black VS.. the State. Deca-
tur c. c. Reversed. Niblack J-u)
Where one called as JUROR in criminal cause
is deputy prosecutor, he is incompetent (2)
AS al o1Jecblon TO Such competency Is not prl-
marty included in any of the principal statutory
causes for challenge, it was too remote to have
been anticipated from any. source by inquiries,
and duty of disclosing the relationship existed
with such person aad the prosecuting attorney.
No. 1850. Samuel Shaffer vs. the State.
Wabash c. G. Affirmed Howk J.-n) Where
the court makes on order-book entity which
upon its face is merely the courts finding of the
amount and character of the accused's punish
ment and where it expressly suspends the entry
OF Judgment the order book entry is not judg-
ment In the cause ~ An indictment charging
the onepse of obtaining money under false pre-
fences when the act Of 1852 was in force is good
though the return was made after the repeal of
inst act, r. S. 1881, secs. 2204, 22l6
No. ff'24 Susie e. ConweA vs. William F.
ConwelL Grant e. G. Reversed. Coleriek, G.
Action upon judgment rendered in appel
lants favor, against the appellee, in Illinois
Held, that copy of the Judgment need not in
such case be filed with the complaint. and if so
hled, 1T does not become a part of the pleading
ana can not be examined or considered in test
ing the suf6ciency or insufhciency Of the com
PLANT The complaint in this case averred that