The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-11
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.
Hon. G. Y. Howk. Chief-justice.
The following opinions were rendered Oct g.:

Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-iustice.
The following opinions we're rendered Oct g.:
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1892. Charles S. Hensley VS.. the State
Marion G. G. Affirmed. Niblack, Appel
liant was indicted for procuring an abortion. He
pleaded specially that on Feb. IL, 1850, the
grand jury returned an indictment against him
in three counts, the first charging him with
using an instrument on the person of the de-
ceased to produce a miscarriage, from which she
died; the second. that he used the instrument In
like manner with the same intent, producing
her death; the third that John Dearbaugh used
an instrument in the same manner with like
intent. and that appellant procured him
to do it. To this indictment he
nleaded not guilty. That afterwards. on May
%, 1885. the second count was nollied, and all
further proceedings on said count were con-
tinued. That jury was impanneled to try the
issues on the first and third counts. That the
parties then proceeded with the trial until May
a. when, before argument the prosecutor asked
leave to withdraw the third count and to dismiss
as TO that count Over appellants objection this
cause, as to that count. was so dismissed. That
the cause was submitted to the jury on the first
count; that the parties named IN that count
are the same as those in the indictment, and the
crime charged is based on the same transaction.
That by reason of those facts appellant has been
put in jeopardy. etc. When defendant
as put upon trial on a valid indictment,
before jury lawfully impsneled and sworn and
the jury is discharged before verdict without
good cause or consent of accused, he has been
put in jeoperdy and discharge of the jury is
equivalent to verdict of not guilty, Where a
defendant has been placed upon trial before a
competent jury and nolle is afterwards en-
tered over his objection to the indictment or
some count, he cannot again be tried therefore
But the entry of a nolle under such similar CIR
cumssances to one count neither arrests nor re-
strains further proceedings upon another count
Where defendant has been found guilty upon
one count and not guilty upon another, he may
be again tried upon the count upon which he
was found guilty if new trial has been grant
ed. There was no averment as to the result OF
the former trial: the inference is there was no
final Judgment, in consequence of a new trial grant
ed or judgment arrested, and as the cause stood
presumably for new trial it was competent for
the prosecutor co have abandoned the cause on
that count and have new Indictment returned
embracing the same facts
TOWNSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1882 Board of Marion County VS. Center
Township. Marion c. G. Affirmed. Howk, @.
J.-Construing together all the provisions of the
statute concerning elections il was the lnten-
ton of the Legislature that the necessary ex-
penses of all elections, township as we'll as gen.
eral. should be borne and paid by the proper
county board out Of the funds of such county.
AFFIDAvIT-BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
1920 David Mcconnell ct al. vs.. George
Huntington, administrator Marion c. G. At
irmed, Elliott, J.-Affdavits in support of mo-
ton for q new trial cannot be Incorporated in
the record by making them part of the motion.
The proper method is by q special order of court
or bill of exceptions.
APPEAL-oAUsE PENDING.
I2943 State VS.. e. & T. III. Railroad Com
pany Knox G. c. Dismissed Mitchell. j.
When a motion to quash an information is over
ruled as to one count and sustained as to an
other while the cause is pending on the other
count. appeal by the State will lie from the
action of the count in quashing one count