The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-04-08
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

- A<'A6 SOOIL
1916. Hugh Dougherty, administrator,
VS.. Philo Rogers. Allen s. c. Affirmed.
Mitchell, Twill: 81 will and devise to p.
r., the young man i raised, in addition to
what ! have already given him, the further
sum of $500" After the death of the tesla
tor notes for 5000 were found among his
papers signed by p. r.. Suit by the admin
istrator on the notes. Answer by p. r.
that the decedent had raised him as a son,
and that their relations were close and in
innate; that the testator was a man of
means, and intended to provide literally
for defendant. and accordingly advanced
divers sums. from time to time, taking his
notes therefor as memoranda being the
notes sued on; that no other property had
been given him, and that the words regard
ing gifts in the will had reference to the
notes. kHeld, that extrinsic evidence was
admissible for the purpose of ascertaining
whether a state of facts existed as to the
time the will was written which CORE
sponded with the words used by attributing
TO them a secondary meaning. and that evil
1 asrSf the IN te snppofFt the OF w she a HsiG' tS Saa f 4Ss
will operated on what had been imperfectly
given as upon the 500.
Berkshire, j. Dissents.
8 1912. John W. Martin VS.. Nancy Martin
ct al. Wabash C.lC. Affirmed. Berkshire,
il. Parties to an action but not TO the
issues are not disqualified as witnesses
under the statute. 2. Wherever the cause
OF action Is one that can only be enforced
W IuNOkluR Uuc cQultdOlc pOWcIS " liz
court the right of trial by jury does not
maintain; but if the cause of action does
not depend on the equity jurisdiction of
the court then a jury trial may be de-
SO, and Keits VS.. Wilson, 1O6 Ind, 147, mod
ified.
1857. VIM. Cunningham VS.. Abraham J.
Hof ct al. Carroll G. G. Affirmed. Odds,
y:EWhen a copy of a note is filed as an ex-
hibit 1T is unnecessary to allege that the
original was destroyed. 2. If the plant
lift establishes the affirmative of an issue
the burden shifts to the defendant.
1896. ElePholt Murdock ct al, VS.. Squire
Cox ct al, Ripley c. C.. Reversed. Elliott,
C. J.-When the court is satisfied from the
record that it would work injustice to di-
rect Judgment upon the special findings of
facts, it will remand the cause with in
struct1ons to grant a new trial.
1856. c.. c., C. 81 i. Railroad Company
VS.. Adam W. Guant. Madison &C. AT
firmed. Coffey, IA complaint charging
that the defendant, a railroad company,
%hI,awdf ops of nifg s boT esrs and mnon e sng ssT.
TALLY across a public highway, by means
of which a team of horses was frightened,
etc, is sufficient, without alleging that the
car had been there an unreasonable time.
COURT.
Room Hon. Napoleon b. Taylor. Judge.
Zilia Hughes VS.. David c. Hughes; di-
vorce. Cause dismissed for want of prose-
cution.
Jno. s. Wilson VS.. Robert j. Elvin ct al;
mechanics lien. Verdict for plaintiff for
$254.5O and Sl25 attorneys fees.
Jehu NJ. Parsons VS.. Arsena Parsons; di-
vorce. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
Nellie L. Taylor VS.. Robert III. Taylor;
divorce; cruel treatment, etc. Granted TO
plaintiff.
Louiccie C. Schort VS.. Victor Schort; di-
vorce; unfaithfulness. Divorce and custody
of children granted, with $500 alimony.
Eelc Suifs Filed.
David G.. Bryan VS.. Sarah Duvall; suit
on note. Demand, $500.
William Strong VS.. Rebecca J.. Scott ct
al; suit TO ~f0rclOse mechanics lien. De
mand, S93.05.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon Livingston Rowland. Judge.
Alvina Young VS.. Henry Bhosey; suit for
damages. Judgment for 500 in favor of
plaintiff.
Sophia L. Cron VS.. Catharine Scholler ct
al; SANDER. Finding for defendants.