The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-06
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
Hon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
'o-day--N No calls.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Hon. W. Il. Niblack, Chief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered Jan. 5:
1884 Tobias Morris va The State. Perry
@. G. Affirmed Niblack, c. J.-Indictment
for rape. Defendants motion to quash was sus-
tanned, and the grand jury being in session re-
turne5 smother one; and it being about o'clock
IN the afternoon, defendant being in court upon
his own recognizance. moved that the triai oe
postponed until the next morning to allow him
further time 10 prepare for his defense. The
motion was overrued. The motion to postpone
was net supported by affidavit or other afnrm-
ative showing. and hence the presumption Is
that the court rightly refused to postpone the
trial.
12462 Michael Johns VS.. the State. Clay
G.. G. Affirmed. collars. lib The statutes
requiring, in affirmative terms, an arraignment
and plea Ia criminal cases do not apply to pro-
ceedings in justices courts. Aside from any ex-
press statutory provisions, a proper practice re-
qures that before proceeding to trial in these
courts the accused should be given the opportu-
nifty and be required to plead guilty or not
is this so where the justice has jurisdic-
lion to dispose Of the case upon its
merits, and 10 not sitting simply as an examining
magistrate The failure to arraign an accused
IN one OF these courts would not be such an
omission as to justify reversal here 1t would
be safer practice for the Justice to enter the
plea upon his docket, but that not being statu-
tory requirement failure TO do will not reverse
"A IUStcS must rcQuiIc pea, ouQ IuS EtCcrQ
here being silent whether it was given, the pre-
sumption is in favor of the validity of the pro-
ceedings. ~ Section 1911 providing, in prose-
BUTTONS for obstructing highway, that it shall
be sufficient to prove that it was used and
worked as such, means that such proof in the
absence of conntervaiiing PROOF is sufficient to
sustain the charge that the way is public one
1879. John W. Wisehart VS., The State
4 Hancock C. G. Affirmed Mitchell, J.-Indict-
ment for misdemeanor. An appeal from the
I'D - ;e&;op nv %ha suotiao NJ fha
peace to the Circuit Court operates as more than
mere stay of the proceedings before the justice,
bus transfers the whole proceedings TO the ap-
peiate court After appeal the case is within
tho jurisdiction of the court and must be dis
posed of as other criminal cases are. There is
no statute authorizing such an appeal to be dis
missed.
1850. Albert Garmire w. The State. La
grange c. G. Affirmed. Elliott J.-Indictment
for forgery The instrument reads: LAGRANGE,
Ind, June 10, 1881. Mr. Allen-Please let A Gar
mire have team to go to Mongo and charge same
to me. T. Hudson" This instrument is within
the provision cs the statute defining the crime of
forgery. 1t is not merely request for the deliv-
cry of property, but writing obligatory promis-
ing to pay for property. The fact that the date
appears to be 1881, instead of 1885, cannot avail
an objection, the Indictment charging that the
paper was uttered on June 49, 1885.
1858. David Lowery VS.. VIM. Carver admin
istrator. Hamilton G. G. Affirmed Howk,
jill The long hand manuscript of the evil
dance was not incorporated into the bill of ex-
ceptions when it was signed by the judge, and it
is therefore part of the BILL ~ Where no
place in the bill is marked by the words Here
insert" for the insertion of such manuscript,
the clerk has no authority to incorporate it
therein t3.) The long-hand manuscript to
constitute part Of the record, must be incorpo-
rated in the bill.
124S6 Samuel fM Mitchell VS.. Thomas W.
Bray ct al. Morgan, G. G. Motion to dismiss
overruled.
1897. Stoughton ]. Fletcher ct al w. Rob-
ert G. McGill. Marion S. G. Rehearing granted.