The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-16
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Gunv0nA Crauwf.
Supreme Court.
Hon. G. v. Howk. ef-iustice
The following opinions were rendered Oct. Is:

Supreme Court.
Hon. G. v. Howk. Chef-iustice.
The following opinions were rendered Oct. Is:
Observation-Disclosures
1918. Timothy j. Porter vs. William Waltz
ct al. Switzerland @. c. Affirmed Mitchell. j.
Where a party signed a note security for
the three above parties" the form of the sigma
ture is only prima facie evidence of the relation
between him and the other makers, and where
his rights depend upon the circumstances al
tending the transaction or the agreement be-
tween the makers of the note, the note is not
the foundation of the action, and, as cross-com-
plainant, ne will not file copy of the note with
the complaint r. J Upon motion for judgment
on the special findings, Notwithstanding the gen.
eral verdict, the findings of the jury within ths
issues import absolute verify, and, unless they
are so irreconcilably in conflict with the gen.
eral verdict as that both cannot stand, the mo-
ton must be overruled 49, One of the ques-
tons in issue related to the consideration upon
which a certain conveyance had been made by
| the principal maker of the note to the party
signing as security. The surety denied appel
lants claim that the consideration to be paid FOR
the land embraced the payment of the note in
suit The consideration depended upon the con-
tract between the surety and his grantor. The
contract was in parol and conversations of the
parties while conducting the negotiations was
part of the res gestae and not incompetent as
hearsay.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ATTACK.
1853. VIM. j. Huff vs. City of Lafayette.
Tippecanoe Z. g. Affirmed collars, J.-Action
to recover taxes paid on lands illegally annexed
to city. t1.) A petition to a county board for
the annexation of land was signed by the Mayor,
but on the face 1t appeared to be the petition of
the Mayor and Common Council. It is shown
in the entire proceedings the board treated it as
the petition of the Common Council In a col
lateral assault upon the proceedings of the board
and under the averments of the complainant it
must be presumed that the petition was that of
&hA .w.nu &hnA hnGN .
upon it the board ascertained that fact e. In
such collateral assault it will be presumed that
plat which was not set out in the complaint,
showed that the compliments lands were con-
tiguous to the lands which were con-
tiguous to the city. 81 The petition for an
nexation need not contain the statement that
the landowners have not consented to an an
nexation by the Common Council. a. It will
be presumed in collateral attack that the
board investigated and determined that the
ton before It annexed the lands. (5.) The final
order is questioned, but it is only fled with the
complaint as a copy, and not being the founda-
ton of the action, 1t cannot be looked to to sup
ply averments in the complaint
sUFFrcIENoY OF INDICTMENT.
1924 Joseph Franklin vs. State. Warren
@. G. Affirmed. Elliott J.-Where an indict-
ment for assault and battery with intent to
murder charges that defendant did felonously,
purposey and with premeditated malice strike,
etc. It is good, although it does not use the word
unlawful"
CONSTRUCTIVE FEES
11749 The Vernon & Columbus Railroad
Company VS. Oradus P. johnson. Scott G. o.
Affirmed. Howk G. J.-Motion to retax costs.
Appellant claims that appellee ought not re-
cover mileage fees of his witnesses for which he
had obtained Judgment because another john
son had another suit against appellants pending
in the same court and at the same time of APP
pelles suit and had summoned the same wit
nesses as his witnesses who had been allowed
the same mileage for the self-same travel. Held:
That the act in regard to constructive fees does
not apply to such case.
1894 James Goodwine ct al. vs. Gideon
Leak ct al Warren G. c. Reinstated.