The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-01
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-March 81. 1885.

No. 11874-Thomas Bosworth VS.. Wayne
Pike Co. Jay c. g. Dismissed. Howk, J.
Where the amount in controversy is less than
fifty dollars exclusive of interest and costs, In
suit originating before justice of the peace, an
appeal to the Supreme Court will be dismissed
under Sec. $50, r. s., 1881.
No. 12004 Frederick Bremmerman ct al VS..
Joseph L. Jennings ct al Upton G. G. At
frmed- Elliott, i'll Where a husband joins
in deed merely clearing up his wife's title to
land, and giving her clear title of record to
what is already hers it is not fraudulent as
against his creditors. e. The report of a mas
ter commissioner is in its nature advisory, and
may be used to assist the court but not to con-
clude it. (3.) A complaint is to be judged from
its general scope and it must proceed on def
mite theory
No. 1883 Cosmican Hays ct al. vs.. John A.
Wilstach. Tippecanoe S. G. Affirmed collars
c. I'LL Where, in ejectment, Judgment is
rendered against the party in possession, and he
appeals to the Supreme Court, executing ap
peal bond, ard the judgment is affirmed, the
rental value of the land, pending the appeal, may
be recovered in action on the bond. u J
The legal effect of such an appeal bond is to
stay proceedings On the judgment, and is not
without consideration.
1851. Thomas Higham vs. Benjamin F. Van
osdol Switzerland c. c. Affirmed. Mitchell,
J.-Q.) In an action by a husband against
another man to recover damages for debauch-
ing and alternating his wife's affections, he
could not be compelled to testify as to CONVEX
Satlon between himself and his wife. subsequent
to the acts complained of, in which it was sought
| to be shown that he had admitted to his wife
that he had full confidence In her. Lit was a
| privileged communication. Whether the de-
| PENDANT had been guilty of adultery or not with
plaintiffs wife could neither be proved nor dis
proved by any communication had by the wife
| to the husband, nor could the defendant avail
| himself of the testimony of either husband or
| wife for the purpose of proving any communica-
| tons between the wife and her husband
| to show whether at that time the husband had
confidence In her purity or not. "a The excu-
| sion of testimony can only be made available by
| asking some pertinent question of a witness on
| the stand and if objection is made, stating to
| the court what testimony the witness would give
| in answer to the question. An ''offer' of evil
| dence is not sufficient 81 In a case of this
| kind mere declarations by the wife, made on the
| day she eloped, to neighbor that "her husband
| did not treat her like he should treat wife, v
| and that she had left him for good and would
never live with him again, are not admissible
| for the defendant in mitigation of damages, no
cruel treatment or misconduct being imputed to
| her husband.
| No. 11O10. Philip S. Alleman VS. AMI l..
| Wheeler. Marshall G. G. Affirmed. Niblack,
J.-u.) Where complaint which might prop
| erly have been made more specific states sub
stan;ally good cause of action, and no njusSite
appears it will be upheld. (2.) Action by in
dorsee against the indorser of promissory note
Finding that the indorser was liable. The evil
dence supports the finding.
No. l00O2 Union Mutual Life Insurance
Company vs. James Buchanan. Marion G. G.
Petition for rehearing overruled