The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-14
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court
Hon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
To-day-No special call.
Supreme Court.


Supreme Court.
Hon. w. X. Niblack. Okief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered April IL:
1902 Buena V. Marshall, administrator VS..
State ex rel Rosa III. Shryer. Vigo G. G.
Affirmed. Niblack C. 1.-The memorandum in
writing found in the transcript, and assumed to
be a record entry of the trial, notes the swearing
in of the shorthand reporter. Following the or
der overruling the motion for new trial an en-
try appears to the effect that the defendant filed
the original long hand report Of the evidence,
which was attached hereto as part of the bill
of exceptions. Following is the clerks certificate
in form, but emitting his signature. Following
is voluminous report of the evidence, with
memoranda Of decisions made, and exceptions
reserved. To that 10 attached the certificate of
the reporter. Following is a blank certificate,
evidently intended for the clerk, that the docu-
ment is the original long hand report. but not
signed. This record is defective H. Because
not certified according to Sections $40 and $50.
~ Because the evidence nor the questions
sought to be raised upon it are properly in the
record.
12145 Gonzalvo G. Smythe vs. Thomas
Scott ct al. Putnam G. G. Reversed. Mitchell.
1.-The complaint charges in substance that
when appellant resigned the Office of treasurer
of secret order he had in his hands large
amount of its money; that upon an accounting
he produced the note in suit, which was payable
to him and signed by one Brown, and demanded
that it be received in discharge of so much of his
liability; that the maker of the note was insol-
vent, and In order to induce his successor to ac-
cepr it in settlement the appellant agreed to
sign his name on the back and be bound as an
original maker. Held: That these facts do not
make appellant an original maker but an ordi-
nary ndorser Held, also That averment that
''the maker was insolvent" was not sufficient to
charge the indorser. Hold, also That an aver
mont that the maker was nonresident of the
State did not rescue the complaint for all that
appears he may have been resident, owning
GEn.. - -
12483 United Express Company VS.. George
V. Rawson ct al Hamilton G. G. Affirmed.
collars. IAN express company, whose bust
ness consisted partly in forwarding and collect
ing bills of exchange, received bill of exchange
for customer for collection. The drawer
made partial payment to the agent of the COM
pany, who had no authority, under the rules of
company, to receive partial payments. The
agent at the point of the drawers of the bill,
obtained their consent to receive the payment,
and directed the other agent to transmit which
he failed to do. and absconded. Held, That the
company was liable to the drawers.
1872. VIM. A. Kennedy vs.. The State. De-
catur G. G. Affirmed. Elliott, jim 1884, at a
political meeting in Greensburg, pickpockets
piled their vocation, crowding and jostling
fed by hotel clerk as one of four guests at the
hotel that day, and Cincinnati police officer
testified that appellant told him that he intended
to be at the meeting. A confederate of appellant
CeS Cln6Q tnaG, Wnen ne was affoSCeu, appellant
was with him and was the person nearest to
him. constable testified that this man struck
him on the head with revolver. David Baker,
the deceased, was in the crowd, and when some
one attempted to pick bis pocket, the pocket of
another party near by having been picked, an
alarm was raised. The four mep then made
their way out of the crowd. and were followed
by the deceased and another party but pursuit
was abandoned. They resumed it after arminp
themselves. Wallace, one of appellants con-
e. - &C ~
made by Baker, who was killed by shot from
the pursued. It was proper to permit the State
to prove, by several persons, that their pockets
were picked in the crowd. It was competent to
prove the commission Of distinct felony. if
witnessed by a citizen, for the purpose of show
ing that the citizen was engaged in the perform
ance of his duty when slain by the felon. While
one distinct felony cannot be established by
proof OF another crime, where two crimes
are connected, both may be proved Here the
citizen knew of the perpetration of crime, and
started in pursuit of the felon. so that. to show
that he was seeking to apprehend the proper
person, it was competent to show that felony
had been recently committed, and that the pur-
suit was fresh.
1856 Johnson M. Burdge vs. Elisha Bolin ct
ux Wabash G. G. Affirmed. Howk. J.-When
an execution debtor. being householder, and
owning less than $780, transferred part Of his
property to his wife to constitute the first pay
ment on a lot which she had purchased and taken
tied to hold the lot against the claims of his exc
cution creditors.
1881. E. s. l. Railroad Company VS..
Frank Grinwood. Vanderburg G. c. Dis
missed
1O873 William Wilson VS.. Aaron M. Flonv.
Marion c. q. Dismissed.
12042. Christian Mckinney ct al. vs. Larena
Smith. Vigo @. G. Renstated.
1850. L., N. A. & c. Railroad Company VS..
acid 10 1hyri1 iap nlad and frixy
thirty days to file brief.
AMENDMENT OF RULE 30
The following amendment to the rules was
adopted yesterday:
Ordered that Sec. III, of Rule 80, adopted
September &c. 1885, be so amended as to read as
the submission of a case under the act of April
Ii, 1885, he shall enter an appearance, and in
writing request the clerk to issue notice to the
appellant of the request to submit The notice
to submit may be served upon the appellant or
upon his attorneys of record, and may be issued
to and served by an officer, or it may be served
by party, his agent or attorney. In case the
notice is served by an officer, his return shall be
evidence OF service; if served by person
not an officer, service may be proved
writing accepts service of the notice other evil
dence of service shall be required The notice
of the request to submit shall be issued by the
clerk and shall be made returnable within ten
days. After the expiration of thirty days from
the service of such notice upon appellant or his
attorney the clerk shall enter an order submit
ting the case unless for cause shown the court
shall otherwise direct Return of service
of notice, proof Of service by affidavit
or by acceptance of service shall be
filed with the clerk, who shall
deposit the notice and evidence Of service with
the record and paper of the cause. The notice
herein provided for shall be deemed the notice
required by the last clause of the act of April
Ii, 1885, and an appellee shall not be entitled to
submit cause unless such notice is given, but
when given it shall be all the notice to submit
that shall be required"
Superior Court
Room Hon. Napoleon B. Taylor. Judge.
Yesterday-Daniel Foley administrator vs.
Samuel Goddard ct al; damages On trial by
jury.
To-day-Call: 34906. Christian Linkerbach
VS. Herman I.autar at al