The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-12-19
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SUPREME COUNT DEClSloNS.
1875. Albert Miller VS.. State. Morgan
C. G.. Reversed. Mitchell. C. Jan in
dictment, predicated on Section 1898, r. s.,
charged that the appellant and two others.
jointly indicted with him, did unlawfully
and felOniously enfice a certain female.
sixteen years of age, of previous chaste
character. to a certain room in the house of
an Individual named, which was pied
by one of the defendants. 'fOr the purpose
of unlawfully and fe~lOniously prostituting
her" In another court the charge was
that the female was enticed as above men
toned for the purpose of prostitutlng her
and of having carnal intercourse with her.
Held insufficient for two reasons: l. Be-
cause it did not aver that the female was
enticed or taken to a hOuse of ill-fame. or
to a place of like character: .. Because it
failed to aver that she was taken to such a
place for the purpose OF prostitution: An
averment that she was taken tor the 'pur-
pose of prOstituting her. was not equiva-
1ert to an averment that she was so enticed
and taken for the purpose of prostitution.
1914. Nathan Mccoy VS.. Florence b.
Trucks ct al. Adams G. G. Affirmed. FL
lott, Ut is unnecessary for the plaintiff
to aver in direct terms that the promises of
the seducer were relied on. and a general
statement of the means resorted to for the
purpose of seducing an unmarried woman
will make the complaint good as against a
demurrer, and the remedy of the defendant
if he deems the complaint vague and in
definite is by a motion to make 1t more
specific. 2. A woman of non age may
maintain an action under our statute for
birth. sickness and like matters may be
shown and may be considered by the jury
in estimating the compensation to be
awarded the plalntiff.
1929. Patrick Mctiuire ct al. VS.. State.
Fulton C.. G. Reversed. Odds. J.-Where
a Judgment of forfeiture was not entered ut
the same term that the default on a con-
tinuing recognizance was entered. 1t is
void. .. 1t is necessary TO prove IN an
action on recognizance that the bond was
taken in the due process OF law by a proper
cOurt OF officer.
1924. John j. Kirkpatrick VS.. Henry G.
Reed ct al. Montgomery [. Z. Rehearing
denied.
I45OS. Ellen Falacy VS.. Maria Jackson.
Vigo G.. G.. Motion TO reinstate sustained.
i327S. Nellie F.. JENNIE VS.. Martha f. Burt.
Marion 5. c. Rehearing denied
COURT.
Room l-Hon. Napoleon b. Taylor. Judge.
Mutual Rubber Company VS.. Irwin b.
Arnold. On trial by jury.
Nelson w. Reynold VS.. Evan IL. Pritch-
ard ct al: damages. Cause dismissed for
want of prosecution.
ROOF l+Hon. u. w. Howe. Judge.
Thomas +. Huddleston ct al. VS.. James
Mckee ct al; on note. Plaintiff dismissed
suit and paid costs.
Mutual Insurance Company: on account.
On trial by jury
Room a-Hon. Lewis C. Walker. Judge.
Peter NJ. Hitchcock ct al. VS., VIM. Thorn;
note and recount. Judgment for S663.S2.
VIM. McGinnis ys. Chas. Ill. Gilliland;
note. Judgment for Sl9OO1.
III. Roever ct al. VS.. Harry ID. Pernie etai;
note. Dismissed at defendants cost.
Jouise i. Metzger VS.. Geo. w. Seibert: ac-
count. Dismissed and costs paid.
Edward Senior VS.. lockwood. Newcomb
x Co: note. Dismissed and costs paid.
jennie Mozingo VS.. The City; damages.
On trial by a jury.
| Citizens Street Railroad Company VS..