The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-22
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.



Hon. w. q. Njblack. Chief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered Feb. 20:
1903. John E. Hockett VS. the State Marion
Criminal Court. Affirmed Niblack. & in
dictment under the act of 1885, which provides
that no telephone company shall charge over So
for the use of telephone and penalty. H. While
1t Is true that letters patent confer upon the pat
his heirs and assigns the exclusive right to make
use and vend the tangible property brought into
existence by . practical application of the dis
covery covered by the letters patent for limited
time, it is not true that such ex-
elusive right authorizes the making
using or vending such property in .
manner which would be unlawful, except for
such letters patient and independently of State
legislation and State control Il The relations
which the telephone has assumed toward the
sense in which the telegraph is common car
rier. and it thus becomes legitimate subject of
legislative regulation ami control. State regula-
ton of property thus devoted to public use is not
the taking of property within the sense of Sec
ton. nor does such regulation interfere
with the guaranteed rights of the cit
liens In private property. 49, The power
OF a State legislature to prescribe the maximum
charges which telephone company may make
for services rendered, facilities afforded or arti
cles of property furnished for use in its business
is plenary and complete. IA The word tee
phone as used in the act of 1885 was intended to
designate. and, in fact really referred to- an ap-
paratus composed of all the usual and necessary
instruments for the convenient and ready trans
mission and reception Of telephone messages,
and not to single instrument only. (5.) Under
the act of 1885 telephone company is not re-
CURED to construct new line against its will. or
to maintain an old line longer than it may feel
inclined to do So
HAS Edward n. Scott VS.. George Scott.
Hancock g. G. Reversed collars J-f1) An
answer to suit on note, alleging release Of
the claims, and that it was founded upon the
consideration of defendant paying stated
amount to other creditors, and procuring a dis
missal of proceedings in bankruptcy by him, is
good. III If the answer fails to aver that the
defendant undertook to pay to the other cred
itors any fixed per cent. of their Claims and that
he paid it, it is bad. (3 Evidence that the re-
lease was executed to procure q dismissal of the
bankruptcy proceedings. and that it was agreed
that the debt should remain, was admissible,
and reply setting up those facts was good
1882. Elmira NJ. Wallace VS.. Isaac Brooker
Fulton c. G. Reversed. Elliott, IA COM
plant for the value of improvements placed on
land from which the defendant had evicted
plaintiff. describing the improvements as ''clean-
ing and fencing, removing stones and putting
the land in a state Of cultivation is subject to
motion to make more specific
1885. Abner Holderman VS.. Charles E.
Thompson. Elkhart G. c. Affirmed. Mitchell.
J.-n.) Unless it afirmatively appears that the
court did not have jurisdiction, an order of COM
mtmenr is not void for want of jurisdiction, and
if not thus void. the legality of the judgment
cannot be inquired into in proceeding for ha-
beas corpus. e. Where a bond is waved by
the relatrix in bastardy proceeding when the
cause is continued from term to term, and the
defendant appears voluntarily, he is none the
less in custody of law, and the court had juris-
diction to commit him.
Adjourned until March 2.