The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-11-06
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.
Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-iustice.
a foIlnwipv oniniope wera randarad No

Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-iustice
The following opinions were rendered Nov. 4:
ooMPLAINT-BILL OF PARTICULARs-BII4Lo OF Ex-
CEPTIoNS-LoNG HAND MANUSCRIPT.
1926 Robert Wagner vs.. Greenville Wilson
ct al. Shelby G. C. Affirmed Mitchell. j.
Where paragraph of omplant seeks recov-
cry of mony advanced to and for the use of the
defendants in their business and AYERS that the
defendants have refused TO pay the plaintiff,
though often requested so to do. is not bad for
failure to aver that it is due and unpaid.
Money so advanced unless credit is stipulated,
for becomes due presently The averment
though not Direct makes it reasonably certain
by inference that the money unpaid. u. J
In an action for the recovery of money where
the complaint alleges that money was advanced
to and was had and received by the defendants
from the plaintiff at given time, no bill of
particulars is necessary unless required
by motion to make more specific.
l3l Where the Indebtedness is not evidenced by
a written instrument and is go particularzed or
described in the body of the complaint as to in
dcate with certainty the items and dates Of the
account upon which q recovery is sought an adj
ditional bill of particulars is unnecessary H.
All that is necessary in order TO prepare bill of
exceptions which shall incorporate the original
long hand manuscript is to prepare the usual
formula for the beginning of an ordinary bill,
with the recital that the following oral evidence
was delivered, and the rulings Of the court ad-
hitting or rejecting evidence and the objections
and exceptions thereto noted, and that YER
batim report of such evidence and the rulings, OBJ
jections and exceptions thereon and thereto was
made by an official reporter, naming him. of which
evidence, rulings, objections and exceptions SO
made and taken the following is the original
lOng-hand manuscript, the same was made
and filed, and then append the usual ending
There is nothing in the bill in this case, or in
the record. to show that the reporter had made
or filed long hand manuscript when the bill
was fled 1t contains nothing to identify the
short hand report of the evidence which the
clerk is directed TO insert
sHERIFF-ESCAPED OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF
DAMAGES.
1868. State ex rel Alice Minor VS.. Levi N
Newcomer ct AL Hamilton c. C. Affirmed
Howk, G. IA prisoner, held in default of pay
ment of a bastardy judgment. escaped from the
custody of the sheriff without his connivance.
The relatrix, as the judgment creditor, brought
suit on the bond of the sheriff. The prisoner
was recommitted eight months after his escape,
but before the determination of the reatrx's
suit against the sheriff for damages. Held that
the measure of her damages is the costs of such
suit
RAILROAD I.ANDs-ASsEssMENT
1885, VIM. A. Pfaff, auditor, VS.. t., H. & I.
Railroad Company. Marion S. G.. Affirmed.
collars, J.-Where lots and lands are occupied
by railroad with tracks, side-tracks, round
house, a small shop for repairing, coal-shed
wood shed, and water tank. they are to be
valued and assessed by the State Board OF
Equalization railroad track" and there ia
no authority under the statute for county and
city authorities to assess them as other lands
are assessed.
TELEGRAPH COMPANY-PENALTY.
1878 Western Union Telegraph Company
VS. Mary e. Steele. Montgomery G. C. Re-
versed Elliott, 1.-THE act of 1885 does not
prescribe apenalty against telegraph company
for neglect in transmitting messages.