The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-17
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
Bon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
To-day-No call.
Supreme Court.
Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-justice
The following decisions were rendered June 1f

Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered June 16:
1880. Bloomington School Township VS.. The
National Furniture Company. Monroe G. c.
Reversed. Howk, G. IA complaint against a
school township which fails to aver that the
goods sold were necessary supplies for the
schools. and that they had been accepted by the
school trustees, is bad.
1888 L.. N. A. & G. Railway Company VS..
James s. Bryan. Clinton C. c. Reversed.
Mitchell, J.-In a complaint for damages against
a railroad company for horses killed, where
there is no averment that the plaintiff is with
out fault. an inference arises that he may have
been guilty or contributory negligence. and I'M
less the complaint. by the specific statement of
facts rebuts this inference, charges that the
injury was purposely and willfully committed,
1t states no cause of action.
lab Jesse d. Brown ct al. vs. Mary A.
Critchell ct al Floyd G. C. Reversed. Nib
lack, J.-Where by will devise was made to a
married woman, who died before its payment
and while the Revised Statutes of 1S43 were in
force, her husband succeeded to the right to it
by virtue of his marital rights. but no right OF
action on such claim survived him to his chill
dren.
$685. City of Fort Waynevs. John NJ. Coombs
ct al. Allen S. c.. Affirmed. Elliott JILL In
actions against municipal corporations for in
JurIes resulting from the negligent construction
or maintenance of sewers the plaintiff must
show that he was free from contribntory negll-
gence. e. Where complaint in such action
charges that the sewer remained out of repair
for two years prior to the injury. it was sufficient
as charging the corporation with notice (3. J
Where highway had existed for twenty years,
the corporation could lawfully use it for sewer
age purposes, although the highway was
crossed by canal, provided injury
WAS done the canal company, and the
corporation cannot escape liability, because it
welded to the demands of the canal company in
the construction, of the sewer under the canal
Ia A municipal corporation which makes use
of private property for the purpose of construct
ing sewer, and in order to obtain the privilege
OF using the property submits to the demands
OF the owner to construct the sewer ac-
cording to plans and specifications pre-
pared by him. is liable for negligence
IN constructing or maintaining the sewer.
t5) A municipal corporation is liable to one
who, for his private benefit, connects his prems
lses with a sewer constructed by the corporation,
for injuries resulting from the negligent con
struction maintenance of that sewer (6)
The trial court must decide the question of the
qualification of a witness offered expert and
when 1t is made to appear prma face
that the witness possesses the requisite uualif-
cation, the court may admit the testimony, and
is not bound to allow preliminary cross-exami-
nation. (7) Where such witness stated that
he had experience in constructing work of a
character similar to that in controversy, and
that his experience was such as enabled him to
judge of the liability of timbers placed under
ground to decay. this is sufficient to allow his
testimony to go to the jury
1852. Charles Eingham VS.. The Board of
Commissioners of Wells County ct al. Affirmed.
Wells q. &. collars, J.-Afirmed on the au-
thority Of johnson Vs. Board etc., decided yes
terday.
1857. Durand G. Alexander VS. Emmett III.
Scott LaPorte G. c. Dismissed.