The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-03-13
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
1883. Peter c. Gamble VS.. Nathan r.
Hultz ct al; Washington c. c. Reversed.
1885, 1888 in regard to drainageJ only author
ICES the location of a ditch on private
lands when there cannot be suitable drain
age made III the roadway, at the same ex-
pense that would follow in making it upon
not provide suitable drainage in the road
way then the landowner has right to
select the location for the drain, and if the
selection is accessible and suitable it is the
duty of the supervisor to accept it; but If
the land-hOlder fails to point out the loca-
ton, or the selec ton is not suitable or ac-
cessible, then the supervisor may mark the
location. If any question arises as to drain
age in the highway or the suitableness of
the location, the landowner is entitled to
if the action threatened by the supervisor
will not be- if carried into effect, compen-
stated in damages an injunction will lie:
1922. John I. Henry ct al. VS.. Levi
versed. Odds, J.-When paper is proper
ly part of the record as an exhibit which
is made a part of pleading and once cop
led into the record, it is useless to recopy 1t
into the bill of exceptions, and 1T is suf-
tions, and state the fact that it was ad-
mitted in evidence, and that copy of it
appears at particular place in the re6Ord.
A will provided: THE balance of my
estate will and beQueath asfOllOws: To be
divided equal between my brothers and
sisters and the children of deceased broth
ers and sisters of P. j. B.. deceased (in-
testate's former husband), and the children
of deceased brothers and sisters, except the
following, to-wit:: The heirs OF d: b. de;
to S. X. will 81, and to M. b. 81, and NJ.
H. 81, and this is all give and bequeath
to these out of my estate" Held, that the
property should be distributed per STRIPES,
not per capita.
1854. Robert C. Wallace VS.. Edmund
Malice. Fulton G.: c.. Affirmed. Mitch
ell, Ut is proper for the court to remind
the jury in case involving fraud that
the presumption of law is against the
charge, and to overcome the presumption
convincing or satisfactory evidence is re-
Quired. 2 A bill of exceptions closed with
the statement Substantially this was all
the evidence" held not properly anthem
ticated.
Weaver ct al. Morgan G. G. Affirmed.
Elliott, G. J.-When husband and his wife
joining, mortgages his land, with agree
ment with his wife to convey the land to
her in consideration for her joining in the
mortgage, and the mortgage. is forecl0sed
and Judgment rendered for 500 too much
and the mortgage is the purchaser and
accepts deed with knowledge that suit
has been filed to correct the Judgment.
there is an 1mplleu contract tnat ne VIII
pay such excess to the owner of the land.
1858. Simeon j. Vancleave vs.. Abraham
Clark. Montgomery. c. c. Reversed.
COffey, jim an action by father for the
breach of a contract for the care and sup
port of a child, the proper measure of dam
ages is the difference in value between the
care and treatment the child actually re-
ceived and that called for by the contract.
1854. Wesley Wilson vs. Nathan Wilson
ct al. Dearborn c. C. Motion to dismiss
appeal overruled.
i4723. Jeanette Roberts VS.. Nancy Alb
bolt ct al Montgomery G. g. Motion to
dismiss appeal overruled.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room 1-Hon. Napoleon B. Taylor. Judge.
Nora Flemming VS.. Citizens Street-rail-
way Company; damages. On trial by jury.
Room 2-Hm. D. w. Howe. Judge.
Frances Cohen VS.. Charles l.. Miller; suit
for damages. On trial by jury.
Room 3-Hon. Lewis C. Walker. Judge
John b. Mosby ct al. VS.. Willis j. Kittey
ct al: account. Judgment for S270.21.
Benjamin A. Gibbs VS.. Rosa Hartra; quiet
title. Finding for defendant.
VIM. III. Brown VS.. Broad Ripple Natural
gas Company ct al; damages. On trial by
jury.
Neio Suits Filed.
Catharine Lowe VS.. George P. Lowe;