The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-11-01
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.
Supreme Court.
Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-justice-
The following opinions were rendered Oct 30;

Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief justice.
The following opinions were rendered Oct. gu
FAILURE TO RETURN TAX LIsr-PENALTY.
1894. John Burg VS.. State ex rel. McCor-
mick. Martin G. G. Reversed. collars, j.
Section $3.50, Revised Statutes, provides that, If
any person gives false assessment list, he shall
be liable to penalty of from $50 to $780, to be
recovered by the State on the relation of the
prosecutor, and paid into the county treasury for
the county. complaint founded on this stat
ute which falls to aver that the defendant was
a resident of the township where the assessor
had furnished the list is defective. The penalty
provided is not fne and the section is not I'M
constitutional as being an inhibition of the pro-
vision of the Constitution, which requires that
fines assessed go to the common school fund.
Neither is it within the inhibition Of the bill OF
rights prohibiting excessive fines. The courts
nave discretion in assessing the penalty, ana IL
must be presumed that it will be used wisely.
1t is not within the inhibition of the bill OF rights
prohibiting person being twice punished Tor
the same offense Section 2l50 is negative In
charfcter-that is, it provides fine for not do
ing that which the law requires. 1t provides
that any one, when requested, who fails to give
true list shall be fined. etc. Section 6339 pro
vides a penalty for giving a false list The
wrongs different, and the two sections do
not provide for a double punishment.
DRAINAGE--NoTICE-CoL ATTACK.
1878. Edmund H. Peters ct al. vs. John Cuff
fer ct AL Madison g. G. Reversed. Elliott,
IAN attack made upon drainage proceedings
after the report of the commissioners was filed,
by motion to dismiss in the same cause. is a di-
rect one. r. There was notice, although de-
fective one, of the proceedings. and there was
actual knowledge of the filing OF the petition for
drainage. and of the proceedings under it, and
also knowledge that money expended on the
faith that the proceedings were valid. Held.
under the facts. that landowner assessed was
not in condition to defeat the proceedings on
the ground that the notice was insufficient
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES GEsTE.
1868. Henry Spittorff VS.. State. Warrick
G. c. Affirmed Mitchell, Jan indictment
for larceny is not bad because it uses ''haul"
instead of the statutory word carry" away
goods. etc. e. 1t is not necessary that stolen
property be produced in court in order that tes
timony to identify it he competent. t. The
theory Of the defense was that the defendant
had been hired by one Gladding to drive
night, going from place to place iu the neighbor-
hood, being ignorant that property was being
stolen. Several testified that defendant had de-
clared this to them, and defendant testified to
the same effect, adding that he was afraid to
leave Gladding, who was armed, when he sus-
pected what was being done. Defendant then
offered to prove that he went to party stolen
from, and told of the larceny of Gadding, and
asked him to prosecute him. proposing to testify
himself. Held inadmissible not being part of
the res gest@, but rather in the nature of self
serving declarations