The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1890-12-20


1861. o. a. NJ. Railroad Company VS..
Mary Trow bridge. Lawrence &. G. At
firmed. Elliott. 1.-THE railway of ap-
pellant crosses q public highway, and for
a distance of 0ne-half mile the highway
and railway run on parallel lines. the
space between them being one hundred
feet For this distance the view of one
travelling upon the highway is unObstruct-
Ell. and persons engaged in work on the
ing on the highway. On day that ap-
peilee was riding q gentle horse employees
of appellant using a hand-car removed it
at the crossing and placed 1T on the high
way in such position that appellees
horse was frightened. There was no other
way for Appellee to go. and she was thrown
from the horse to the ground and ipjured.
In answer to special interrOgatoriest the jury
found that the hand-car was about ten
feet from the center OF the highway, aud
could be seen at Q distance of sixty feet
away. and was seen by appelle; that the
highway was forty-hve feet wide, and
there was nothing unusual IN the appear
ance of the hand-car. Held, that the OBJ
struction of the highway by the hand-csr
was prima facie unlawful, and there is no
satisfactory explanation for the wrong in
the facts stated. held, also, that such
wrong was the pr0ximate cause of ap-
pellee's injury. and that appellant was
1865. Jacob DeHart VS.. Abraham H.
Ham. Warren &. c. Affirmed. Odds, c.
IA complaint alleging that the defend
ant, as a surgeon. undertook to faithfully,
skillfully and diligently treat. and set. and
shoulder" is an action OK delicto. The word
undertook" is not q synonym for prom
Used, agreed or contracted. The defendant
was not entitled to an exemption.
1855. Indianapolis Water Company VS..
Francis Mute. Marion s. C.. Affirmed.
Cotfey, jim 1877 the Water-works Com
pany of indianapolis owned that part of
the central canal situated in Marion conn
ty, together with certain dams, etc., one
of which was at Broad Ripple. appurtenant
to which were valuable water powers and
privileges, connected with which was q
levee. Appellee, owning land admitting on
the river near the Broad Ripple dam. upon
owned a levee. agreed, with the company,
if it would continue the levee to certain
point that he would extend 1T north across
his land at his own expense and maintain
the same and relieve the company from
damages from high water. The corporate
property was sold under order of court
the failure of appellee to keep
that part of the levee constructed by him
in repair it was broken and water escaped
the gravel road company. and appellee fail
ing To repair appellant did so, and brings
this action for the two items of damages.
Held. that the complaint showing these
acts was bad on demurrer.
1865. John l. Keller vs. VIM. s. Heines.
Hancock G. c. Affirmed. Berkshire. 1.-THE
bill of exceptions was not filed within the
time allowed. No question is presented.
1922. Alfred Morrison VS.. VIM. III. Casey
ct al. Porter G. G.. Restraining order re-
fused.
Room 2-Hon James w. Harper. Judge.
Conrad SCHNEIDER VS.. William McCray;
contract. Finding for plaintiff for S495.
Ne,c Suit Filed
Horace E. Smith ct al VS.. James B. Pond
ct al; suit in attachments
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Pierce Norton. Judge pro tem-
Walter Shields va. Alexander {. Clark
damages. Verdict for plaintiff for 81.
Stephen Price VS.. Samuel Hamlin.
Plaintiffs appearance withdrawn and cause
dian,i ssed for want of proeecutiou.