The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-27
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
Hon. ". "A. Woods. judge
Tc-6ay-Newby vs. Huddleson on trial.
Supreme Court.


Hon. w. L. Niblack, Chief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered Jan. 26:
120S3, Olivia Beard VS. Elisha A. Pruet ct al
Montgomery c. G. Reversed, Niblack, c. j.
Where wife advanced money to her husband
to maintain suit for damages for an assault and
battery, she acquired the right to be reimbursed
out of his estate whenever means for that pur-
pose became available, and as the holder by as
signment from the husband OF the Judgment OBJ
tanned, her equities are superior to those of the
Judgment; defendants seeking to set-off judy
ment they held against the husband against the
one recovered.
1910. John Smurr vs. The State. Whitley
G. g. Affirmed. Elliott, J.-Where a judge,
having statutory authority to appoint an ad-
5ourned term of court does make an order in
time for holding an adjourned term, causes mo-
tees OF such adjourned term to be given, APP
pears at the time appointed and opens court, the
nes Vod although an SsS at tms
whom another court of the same cir
cult mightshave been in sessionsunderthe statute,
and was in session, presided over by special
judge; and the failure of an accused to object at
the trial is a waiver OF all question as to the
regularity of the proceedings at the adjourned
term (2.) A brother may lawfully defend his
brother when in peril, and if need be take life;
but, where both brothers are in fault and unite
in wrongfully bringing on the rencounter, the
rule does not apply.
1882 John B. Conner VS.. Citizens Street
Railway Company. Marion S. C. Reversed.
Mitchell ILL Where, upon an issue involv-
ing negligence. the principal or ultimate facts
are determined by the jury in its special finding,
1t then becomes the function of the court to de-
side, as aquestion of law. upon the facts found,
whether or not the party to whom negligence
Is imputed was negligent e. Where the facts
found in special finding are that the defendant,
street railway company, had three cars
punched together at point on its line that
they had lost their proper time; that an officer of
fhe company, on the front car had
directed that it and the succeeding car
should be driven rapidly without stopping
to receive passengers, and that the rear car
should receive passengers; that the two front
cars were driven rapidly; that the first car had
passed point where the plaintiff was standing
without Stacking speed; that the second an.
preached the crossing, that being the usual place
TO receive passengers; that plaintiff cave notice
to the driver that he desired to take passage:
that there wss no one in the car; that plaintiff
wss not instructed not to get on the car: that
the car was slacGened 20 a walk as was the Gus
tom for passengers to get on: that as plaintiff
attempted to get on the driver struck the mules,
whereby plaintiff was thrown to the ground and
injured-they show negligence in the defend
ant and no contributory fault in plaintiff
JaI94 Charles Zurich VS.. State ex. rel Mag
gle Baum. Porter O. G. Reversed collars, j.
IL If an appeal was in fact, taken the failure
of the justice TO note that fact in mis- docket is
not . sufficient cause for Diminishing tho appeal
in tbs Circuit Court. r. In o prosecution for
baetardy the defendant has right to require an