The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-03-21
The Courk RECORD.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Hon. J. A. s. Mitchell. Chief-iustice.

1909 Indiana, Bloomington & Western Rail-
way Company Va. George r. Barnhart. Marion
s. @. Affirmed Niblack, J.-While nothing
can be intended to supply any defect in a
special verdict, it is still the duty of the
TO take into consideration all that may be
plainly and reasonably inferred from the facts
that have been found when declaring the law upon
such facts. 2 When two lines of railroad
owned by one company. and used by several
companies switches for the purpose of con-
Meeting a pork-house with various lines of rail-
roads, and to enable the last named companies
TO haul freight 70 and from tie pork house. and
an engineer one of the several railroads, in
running his engine over another company's
road and then on the switches collides with
train belonging to still another company,
implied, 20 use the tracks. the company
over whose tracks he passed and the company
owning the switches are under obligation to
provide for his safety. and failing to do this
they are liable for his injuries g. When an
obligation is imposed by statute IL is negligence
per SO to disregard the obligation thus imposed,
and if any injury is thereby inflicted the party
disregarding the statute Is liable
1892. Clark Civil Township, of Montgomery
county. VS.. Drake Brookshire. Montgomery c.
G. Affirmed. collars J.-Complaint by a road
superintendent to recover the value of services
rendered Sections 5000 and 5071, Revised
Statutes, provide that the superintendent shall
year first put all highways in good, ordi-
nary repair. and then with such
other means as may be In his
extraordinary upon some portions of the high
way which are mostly travelled, by ditehing,
grading, building, etc.. as may seem prudent to
him. The complaint AYERS substantially that
the money expended In repairing and i'm
proving the highways by ditching. grading,
graveling and constructing culverts and that
such repairs were necessary and valuable. This
was sufficient against an objection that the
complaint did not show that the money was ex-
pended for ordinary repairs. The difference be-
tween work upon highways, spoken of as ordi-
nary and extraordinary. is more in degree than
in character. The provision that the
work shall be done in April, May and June is
directory. Appellee may recover money ad
vanced by him in repairs the roads q
When the witnesses were acquaint ted with the
highway. it's condition before it was improved,
character of the soil, the amount of water
necessary to be drained away from the high
way, and experienced in improving and main
tanning highways, they may testify as to the
character or the culverts. fills and the amount
of gravel necessary to render the highways pass
able and in good ordinary repair.
1897. Julia n. Abbett vs.. Board of Commits
sioners. johnson C. C. Affirmed. Mitchell. G.
J.-Counties are not liable account of defects
obstructions in highways. 2. county is
not liable for the negligence of officers or
agents to whom it has committed work of
pairing bridge public highway, to one
who was thereby injured.
12148. John W. Duncan ct al vs. Absalom
c. Wallace Dearborn c. q. Reversed. Ell
lott, J.-Will 81 give and devise TO my be-
loved wife the farm on which we now reside
during her natural life, and all the stock.
chattels which may be theron at the
time of my decease during her natural life. she,
icient to pay my just debts." At the death of
the wife disposition Of the property is made TO
the children. Various legacies are then made
to be paid IN different years after the death of
the wife Held. that the will does not dispose
of all the personal property of which the testa-
tor was the owner, and that the land cannot
therefore be charged. Held, also, that only
life interest in the personal property was vested
In the widow and that she had not absolute
power of disposition.
1896 Sarah j. Cornell ct al VS.. VIM. n.
Gibson. Kosciusko c. C. Reversed. Howk,
a husband may pay the debt to his wife at
any time, in money or property. and prefer
his wife over other creditors in doing.
1928 Jacob Keesier ct al VS. Toledo Mewer
and Reaper Company. Jay G. c. Dismissed.
14140 City of Lafayette Daniel P. Wort
man. Tippecanoe c. C. Dismissed
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room I-Ron. N B. Taylor. Judge
Anna Barnett VS.. Louis E. Barnett; divorce;
abandonment and failure to provide. Divorce
granted.
way Company; to abate nuisance. On trial by
court
Room 2-Hon. D. W. Howe. Judge.
Edward S. De Tamble ct al. va. Frederick
Bauman: damages. On trial by jury.
Room Sion Lewis C. Walker. Judge
John Claflin ct al. vs. Andrew Dickson;
ceiyership, Chas. Mcclure appointed receiver
and fled bond.
Walter Kessler VS.. ooIilic Quarry Company;
receivership. On trial by the court
NEW SUITS FILED
Peter Lieber Brewing Company vs. Charles
Habich; complaint account Demand, 800.
Peter Lieber Brewing Company vs. James
Curtin; complaint account Demand. $500.
James Z. Dickson VS.. James W. Morrissey;
complaint account Demand, S., 500.
William Mansur ct al. va. Andrew Dickson 6
Co.; complaint for possession of real estate.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. William Irwin, Judge.
State VS.. Theodore Keessee and Alonz0 KEGS
see; grand larceny. Judgment on verdict and
sentenced TO the penitentiary for eighteen
months each.
State Malachi Reed; incest Trial by Jury
found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary
for seven years.