The Indianapolis journal., 1889-10-19
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.

A
| 1856. Simon P. Cooper VS.. State. JEFF
| ferson, G.. &. Affirmed. Mitchell, 1.-THE
| Intervention of mere irregularities in draw
| ing and organizing the grand jury, which
! involve no charge of fraud or corruption,
| and which IN no way prejudice the sub
stantial ri ght of the defendant, assuming
| in the absence of anything appearing to the
contrary that the body, as constituted, was
| qualified and not subject to any of the
I statutory causes of challenge are not
| available as plea to abate the instrument.
The right to file the plea In abatement was
! waived by pleading to the Indictment and
| applying for and obtaining a change of
venue. 2. While it appears that the
| court gave certain Instructions set out in
| bill of exceptions, it does not affirmative
ly appear that the instructions set out were
| all that were given. In the absence of such
| affirmative statements, or something from
which the fact could be implied, the judg-
| ment will not be reversed unless an in
struction complained of was so radically
| wrong as to be incurable. 3. Conviction
| of manslaughter. new trial is asked on the
| ground of newly discovered evidence which
| amounts to nothing more than that the
| accused had INDUCED in drink to excess for
several months prior to the crime. There
| is no showing of diligence or failure to eX-
| ercise diligence. The mere fact that he
| had, by several months of excessive drink
| ing brought on a nervous condition border
| ing on delirium, would be very slight evil
dence of insanity. The evidence is not suf-
/ ficient.
1885. Philander III. Boyd VS.. Adam T.
Brown. Hancock c. C.. Affirmed. Coffey,
J.-When there was nothing in the cause
upon which any decree or order in the at
tachment proceeding could be made it was
| proper for the court to instruct the jury TO
return verdict for the defendants as to
| the attachment proceedings.
| 1880. Commodore Z. Riggs ct al. VS..
| Alonzo ID. Trees. Sullivan G. G. Affirmed.
Elliott. c. J.-One who places in another's
hands his promssory note perfect in all it's
| parts cannot defeat the note in the hands
| of a bona fide holder. 2. Where in the sale
| of real estate note is executed for unpaid
| purchase money and placed IN the hands of
| brokers to retain until liens aredischargcd
| against the land. and such brokers, in viO-
lation of the contract, deliver the note to
| the seller, who negotiates it to bona tide
| holder, such seller being insOlvent, the
| brokers are liable in damages.
| 1904. Richard L. BEEN VS.. Fannie Chest
| nut. Lawrence c. G. Affirmed Mitchell,
loon-keeper. under See. 1923, X. s., for dam
| ages sustained to her person, property and
means of support, on account of the use of
| Intoxicating liquors unlawfully sold to her
husband by the defendant. it is not neces-
sary to aver that she was free from fault
| contributing to her injuries.
| 1928. Mamie +. Jenne vs. Martha f.
Burt. Marion 5. G. Affirmed. Berkshire.
| J.-When mortgaged property is held by
entirety. and it is averred in complaint
| to foreclose that the loan was made to the
| husband and wife. Jointly, the presumption
| must be that she was principal and not the
surety of her husband, and the complaint
is good. 2. Amendments are allowable
| to conform the peadingS TO the evidence
| after the cause has been finally submitted,
| when the amendment does not change the
| cause of action. There is no error unless
abuse of discretion is shown.
1921, o. & NJ. Railway Company VS..
John Z. Judy. Sullivan c. c. Affirmed.
| OIds. J.-Action to recover damages for
personal injuries. Verdict for s., 800. Held.
upon the evidence, that the damages are
quired to itemize. by answers to interroga-
tories. damages in such a case. and assess a
separate amount for each element making
up the gross sum. The Supreme Court will
not consider the items if stated by the
! jury IN their answers.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room I-Hon. Napoleon B. Taylor. Judge.
Melinda J.. Winner VS.. Citizens Street.
railway Company; damages. Verdict for
Frank NJ. Flanner ct al. VS.. Mary ].
Bracken; on account. Cause dismissed.
Room 2-Hon. Daniel Wait Howe. Judge.
Louisa s. Bernhamer VS.. VIM. B. Walls:
repieyin. Verdict for piaintin IN the sum
OF 500 or return of property
l Chas. a. Webb VS.. Jediah Mccormick;
mechanics lien. Judgment Tor plaintiff for
Sl.2. 30 and foreclosure of lien.
Giles 5. Bradley, receiver, VS.. Frank ID.
Macbeth ct al. Judgment on demurrer
versus plaintiff for costs
Dora L.. Pattison VS.. Harry j. Pattison;
divorce. Dismissed at plaintiffs cost.
Henry j. Hockensmith VS.. John johnson;
on note, Judgment for plaintiff for S997. S5.
mechanics lien; Judgment for 1878 versus
| A. NJ. Bruce and foreclosure of lien
Marion A. Lynch VS.. Albert r. Tucker.
] Dismissed Tor want OF prosecution.