The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-04-05
would not permit his mother to appear,
even as a witness, in so insignificant a
The Court Record.


COURT DECISIONS.
1854. Mary G.. Haynes ct al. VS.. Joseph
=. Cox. Vanderburg s. G. Reversed. Odds,
1.-The statute in regard to the sale of
lands under a school-fund mortgage by the
county auditor ISectiOn 1892 provides that
the auditor shall sell enough of the mort
gagged premises to pay the debt, and when
less than the whole tract mOrtgaged is sold
the quantity sold shall be taken in a square
1Sea iy c corner Of a. tb p0f trnct' on & shs apran,
from the statute renders the sale void. 1t
Is the duty of the auditor to offer the mort
gagged premises in the manne prescribed by
the statute, and if no one bid the amount
due, after offering the whole tract, it is his
duty to bid it in for the use of the fund Sc
cured by the mortgage.
1850. Alfred Harrison VS.. John G.. s.
Harrison. Marion S. C. Affirmed. Mitch
s snrstv wv = q deposiht site in a ban Sa1k Twas WAS
notified of the default of the principal, in
structed the bank to charge the amount
due on the note against his account, when
the bank suggested that it be not formally
entered up, but such deposit considered
subject to the charge, which was agreed to,
and the bank subsequently failed Held,
that the receiver, the principal of the note
having paid the amount due thereon, ought
to pay such mount collected to the depos-
1864. Christopher c. Monks VS.. George
w. Monks. Randolph c. c. Affirmed. FL
hot, G. 1.-THE complaint charges that
the defendant maliciOusly slandered the
plaintiff by speaking and publishing of
him that he contracted a lOathsOme disOr-
der. The words are not separate acts.
1928. Albert G.. McDaniels eft al. VS..
State ex rel. Ella McHugh. Montgomery
c. C.. Reversed. Odds, 1.-The section of
the statute requiring that the constable
shall withhold property mOrtgaged from
the purchaser, at a sale of such property,
until he has complied with the conditions
OF the mortgage, is constitutional, and II
the constable turns over the property with
out making such requirements, he is liable
on his bond. 2. If the property, after the
sale, is turned over without a compliance
with the mortgage. bnt is in a situation
that the mortgage might pursue 1T after
SO, and the constable is liable for such dam
ages as the mortgage actually sustained.
1T the goods are converted the c~OnStable'S
liability is for the value of the property, or
If it exceeds the debt, then for the amount
of the mortgage.
COURT
Room Hon. Napoleon B. Taylor. Judge.
Jno. S. Wilson VS.. Robert j. Elvin ct al;
mechanics lein. On trial by jury.
Room 2-Hon. D. w. Howe. Judge.
Alexander w. Amick VS.. William H.
Taylor; note. Judgment for plaintiff for
Martha J. Neighbors ct al, VS.. Charles
AA0iA OU dbS quiz vi lCdi OotdtO. VII IA W
court.
Room s-Hon. Lewis @. Walker. Judge.
William Hid VS.. William F. Claffey;
account. Judgment for STA. 20.
Samuel A. Myers VS.. Butler University;
contract. On trial by the court.
New Suits Ftled.
John w. Clark VS.. William D. Huffman;
suit on account. Demand, $500.
Volney T. Malott ct al. VS.. Frances A.
Cummins ct al; complaint to quiet title.
ElizaA. V. Roberts VS.. JOsephD. Roberts;
complaint for execution OF judgment. De-
mand, 5 1,2SS.&.
Mary Northruys VS.. Christopher Hilgen-
berg; complaint for recovery of real estate
and damages. Demand, $500.
Florence Harrison VS.. Capital City Plan
ing-mil Company ct al; complaint for dam
ages. Demand, $4,000.
Sample Loftin VS.. John f. Sullivan ct al:
supplementary complaint for foreclosure of
lien. Demand, S505.57.
Isador Elbe ct al. VS.. Ernest A. Herr
mann; complaint on account. Demand,
$3.50.
Thomas Webb VS.. Herman Cordes; COM
plant on account. Demand, $3.50.
IRCUI COURT.
Hon. Livingston Rowland, Judge.
John NJ. Bohmie, administrator of Chas.
III. Shapley's estate, VS.. indianapolis Car
and Manufacturing Company; damages.
l. Levi II. Hamlin VS.. Charles Lauer; con-
tract. Trial by court. Under advisement.
COURT.
Hon. William Irwin, Judge.
State VS.. Kate Flick; grand larceny. Ac-
| quilted.
State VS.. Margaret Smith; receiving stolen
goods. Four years in State prison.
State VS.. Hattie Smith; receiving stolen
goods. Three years in State prison.
State VS.. Frederick Smith; receiving
| stolen goods. Acquitted.
State VS.. Frederick Shear; receiving
stolen goods. One year in State prison.