The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-01-31
JAN. 80, 1885.
The following decisions were handed down yes

The following decisions were handed down yes
terday:
No 1876 Minerva E. secrist vs. Board Of
Commissioners of Delaware. Delaware c. G.
of statute mechanics lien will not attach to
county property. (S6 Ind, 35l.l ~ Where a
contractor refuses to pay for the materials fur
nished, Secs 4246-7 r. S, 1881, provide the
remedy.
No 1O993. W. L. Idding VS. J. w. Pierson
ct al. Hendricks, g. c. Reversed Colerick.
G. G. Where a partnership is formed for an in
definite period and customer having no notice
of dissolution deals with the remaining partner
as the old firm, and in the usual course of tho
business accepts note from such partner signed
with the names of the firm members, the retir
ing partner is liable. Is Ind 2l5. (32 VT ID (23
VT 7l1.) Il Lind.) Part 407. Wade notice 407.
a. A note given by one partner within the
scope of partnership business in the names of
both, binds the other partner unless he dis
sented to the knowledge of the payee at the
time Of the delivery. $50 Ind. 2l7) Is Wend.
475.) (92 Ind &C.
No 11819. J. j. Sexson VS.. Board Commits
sioners of Green county. Affirmed. collars, c..
j. Affirmed on authority of Bynum VS. Board
ct al. No. 1890, Jan. %.
No. 10998 David NJ. Adams ct al, vs. John
E. Sullivan. Marion s. G. Reversed Niblack,
I'D General footings or aggregate amounts
may be testified to by witness VINO is familiar
with them, for the purpose of testing the accur-
acy of more detailed statements in the evidence,
or when necessary to make out a merely prima
facie case IA Ind 499; Greenleaf Ev., secs.
1l7-120) &c. where slips of paper-whieh are
mere unsigned memoranda, which of themselves
prove nothing and which require the support OF
parol or other evidence to make them evidence
for any purpose-are reported by an employe to
the book keeper in the course OF business, such
bookkeeper may testify as to the matters con-
tanned on said slips or reports without producing
said slips 12) Where GAMBLER of eggs testifies,
NO h11rY m facts c0fninp
to his knowledge IN the course of his employ
ment, it is proper to refuse to admit the testi-
mony of a former employer of such
Gambler, in whose service he had been
four years previously, to the effect that
he was neither an expert nor competent per
son for the Gambling of eggs, as the time is too
remote. In such cases the remoteness or prox-
unity of time is very much in the discretion of
the nisi prius court. q. Proof of reputation
does not apply to what a party's relations are to
q limited number of persons, or what his quaifi-
cations may be for some merely private pursuit.
or whether he is skilled in some particular en-
ployment. (Starkey Ev., 45; Greenleaf, Sec
101; l22 Mass, SOL Best Ev., sec. 49, a. In
an action by a dealer in eggs against ware
houseman to recover for damages to eggs while
on storage an instruction by the trial court that
the plaintiff was entitled to recover the
highest market price he could have obtained at
the time of the injury, was erroneous, as such
damage should have been estimated according
Rl0OO
where and time when they were injured,
No. 1852 William d. Shull, administrators,
VS.. Susan Shull; sTippecanoe c. G. Reversed
Mitchell J.-Ql In suit by widow who was
the second of decedent to set aside contract
of assignment, by which, for stipulated con-
sideration, she relinquished and set over to the
children of her deceased husband by former
wife, all her interest in his estate, which consd-
Grafton was much smaller than she was entitled
to receive as widow upon the settlement of said
estate When she offers i'll her bill and at the
hearing to abide such decree as the court should
award her. the fact that she did not return Or
offer to return the sum paid her is no obstacle
in the way of the jurisdiction of the court
tBispham,s Ed, sec. 49, (2.l In this. case the
evidence showed that the widow and all the
parties were capable Of contracting, and that
there were no Compartments between the parties
as to the value of the estate, and the inference
of fraud drawn by the trial court was erroneous
No. 6416. A, G. Trentman VS.. c. c. Fletcher
ct al: Allen G. c. Petition for rehearing by
appellees.