The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-08
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.
supreme COUrts
hon. G. v. Howk. Chief justice.


Hon. G. v. Howk. hief-justice.
The following opinions were rendered Oct Z:
NUIsANCEs- INDICTMENT DUPLIcTTY-JURoRs
1922 Lewis Mergentheim VS.. The State.
Miami G. @. Affirmed. Mitchell, J.-Indict-
ment under Section 2066, which provides that
whoever causes suffers any offal, filth or null
ance substance to be collected or remain in any
place,to the damage or prejudice of others or the
public, shall be subject to certain penalties.
The Indictment charges violation of this part OF
the section, but if it had combined conjunctvely
any or all of the prohibited acts and charged all
of the acts to have been done at the same time
ana by the same person it would not have
been bad for duplicity. The Indictment charges
defendant with having unlawfully caused, pro-
cured and permitted large quantities of filth,
etc., to be collected and remain. The means
were described with sufficient PARTICULARLY. A
description of the locality and business was un-
necessary. Evidence by the defendant that the
odors had existed for several years previous to
the indictment was not admissible. Evidence
as to the health of the employees of the mill
which discharged the impurities was inadmlssl-
be- The court had discretion to reasonably
limit the number of witnesses as to the canal
and the odors emitted therefrom. Where an
affidavit charged that the jury read newspaper
containing article in regard to the case mis-
conduct will not be presumed and as 1t was not
alleged they read the article it will be presumed
they did not see it.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY-INDICTSfENT
1920. John w. Keeling vs.. State. Marion
G. c. Affirmed. collars, J-Indictment that
appellant did, in rude, insolent and angry
manner, unlawfully and feloniously touch,
strike. shoot and wound one Kennedy, and dis
charged loaded revolver against the person of
said Kennedy with premeditated malice to kill
and murder.
1t was not necessary that the Indictment
should allege the present ability of the accused
to commit the injury. The indictment was
good. There was evidence of battery, but
the court found defendant guilty of an assault
and battery as charged. This was harmless
error
MARRIED wOMEN-sURETYsHIP.
1855. Salle A. Fawkner ct al VS.. Scottish
American Mortgage Company ct al Marion S.
Z. Affirmed. Howk, c. 1.-THE facts in the
case show that the money for which the mort
gage In suit was given was properly applied by
tie authority and consent of the wife to the ex-
tinguishment Of valid liens upon the property,
debts which she had lawfully contracted. The
mortgage is therefore binding upon her.
Observation-Disclosures TRIAL.
1868 John Wolfe ct al. VS.. Ernest Kable ct
al Knox g. G. Affirmed Elliott, J.-When
the controversy is between heirs as to rights de-
rived through contracts as transactions with the
ancestors, none of the parties are competent to
testify as to declarations made by him. con-
veyance by parent to a child is presumably an
Advancement; but to defeat this presumption,
and show that 1t was gift, the children are not
competent (2.) If a motion for a new trial is
not we'll made as to all who unite in it, there is
no error in overruling it.