The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-11-21
The Court Record.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Hon. w. A. Woods, Judge.
United States VS.. VIM. W.. Stewart, embezzle-
ment; plea OF guilty. Fined $25 and sentence
OF one year in northern prison.
United States We. John u. kannshan; vio!at-
ing postal laws; plea OF guilty. Fined 500.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
1906. Tullar J. Woodard ct oil. vs. Ella
Baker. Elkhart c. G. Affirmed. Howk. J.
Our statute does not contemplate or provide
that a party may reserve a question OF fact, or
mixed questions OF fact and law, decided by the
trial court. in the mode prescribed by Section
630, X. S, 1881. for the decision of the Supreme
Court, but the question so reserved must be one
OF law. pure and simple, unmixed with any
questions of fact, and it must re one which
arose and was decided during the progress OF
the trial, to the decision Of which al exception
was taken at the time. In this case, after the
evidence had been fully heard upon the trial of
the issues Joined and after tho court had an
nouuced it's final decision In favor of the defend
ant, the plaintiff undertook to reserve that de-
cisior. Such proceeding was not authorized by
any law.
1882. State ex rel. Martindale. prosecuting
attorney, Us. Levi Lauer. Marshall L. G.. Re-
versed. Elliott, J.-This action is prosecuted
under the provisions OF Section 1889. II. S.,
1881. to recover the statutory penalty for max
ing and returning a false and fraudulent list Of
taxable property. The statute Is valid, and the
complaint good. Tho offsnss consists in making
q false and fraudulent list or schedule, and the
provision requiring notice to be given the prose-
cnting attorney Is no part OF the definition OF
the offsnse, but is merely a direction to the as
SCISSOR to give notice to the proper officer OF the
taxpayers offense. Il was not necessary that
the complaint should allege that the prosecuting
attorney was notified of the offense.
1881. William V. Mckinney VS.. James B.
Snider ct al. Clinton Z. c. Affirmed. Mitchell,
J.-Whers the complaint in q proceeding sup
plemsntary to execution does not contain an
vermont showing that an execution had issued
to the sheriff of the county IN which the exscu-
ton debtor resides, or of the county in which
the Judgment was rendered, in case the debtor
Is a nonresident Of the State, it is bad. Ponder
VS.. Tate, Ill Ind, las.
SUPERIOR COURT
Room lion. n. g.. Taylor. Judge.
Harruth Lampher VS.. Henry Ankenbrock;
damages. Verdict for plaintiff for $500.
Mary u. Robinson VS.. Edmund Zoller; from
F%eiblemsu. j. 2. On trial by court.
Room 2-Hon. ID. w. Howe, Judge.
Theodore Z. Griffith ct al. VS.. VIM. Barton.
Judgment on o note for 81, J34 10.
William Epgels es al. VS.. Albert Hetzelberger
ct al. Judgment on a note for 1888. 23.
Joseph Fisher VS.. Charles Haustmap. Dis
missed.
Room 3-Hon. Lewis {. Walker, Judge.
Union Depot Savings and Loan Association
VS.. Alvina Campbell ct al; foreclosure. Judg-
msnt for 81, 1895.
l.. Z. & w. X. II. VS.. L., n. A. & c. r. r.; in
junction. On trial by the court.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. William Irwin. Judge.
State VS.. Joseph Marshall; petit larceny. Plea
OF guilty. Sentence Two months in work. house.
State VS.. Harry Craig; petit larceny. Plea OF
guilty. Sentence two months in the work-house.
State vs. Charles Patterson; petit larceny.
Plea OF guilty. Sentence two months in the
work-house.
State VS.. John Duffy; petit larceny. Plea OF
guilty. Sentence three months in the work.
house.
State vs.. Andrew Hickson; grand larceny.
Plea Of guilty. Sentence two years in State
prison.
State We. John Petit; petit larceny. Plea OF
guilty, and remanded for s~entancs.
NsW Suits Filed.
Lyman 6. Ayres va. Charles F. Wymsnd; com.
plant on account. Demand. S5l6. IL.
Alexander c. .Ayres, trustee. VS.. William Fl.
Spahr; complaint on note. Demand, $3.50.
William d.. Niles ct al. VS.. Maholon 7. Moody
complaint on note. Demand. $500.
William III. Fennemsn VS.. Henry Fenneman
ct al; complaint for partition.
Henry l.. Crompton vs.. Isaac Ii. Ickler: com
plant on mechanics lien. Demand, 81, 500.
Howard Reganhard ct al. vs.. John A. Craig;
COMPLAINT on account. Demand. Sl21. OF.