The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-04-24
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
No. 14slS William E. Osborne ct al. VS..
Wabash G. C.. Affirmed. Elliott, i'll.
Where an officer becomes defaulter, fees
the State, leaves no one to care for the pub
lie affairs, and indicates q settled purpose
10 abandon the Office. it may be deemed
vacant without judicial determination.
2. The presumption Is that an appointment
made by an officer having power to appoint
Is rightfully made whenever 1t appears
that the appointee duly qualified and en-
tered into possession of the office. 3. The
reports of trustee are prlma facie evidence
of his Indebtedness. The admission of such
reports, unless satisfactorily cOntradioted,
will warrant finding against the officer
and his sureties.
No. 1914 Ruins Ellis VS.. Britton Bassett.
Howard T.. G. Affirmed. Miller. i'll. A
partition of real estate among heirs carries
with it by implication the same right of
way from one part to and over the other as
had been plainly and obviously enjoyed by
the common ancestor, in so far as it is rea-
sOnably necessary for the enjoyment of
each part 2. Where the owner
of an estate imposes upon one
part an apparent and obvious servitude in
favor of an ther and at the time of the sever
ance of ownership such servitude Is in use
and is reasonably necessary for the fair en-
loyment of the other, then. whether the sew
erance is by voluntary alienation, or by ju-
dicial proceedings, the use is continued by
that the way was way Of necessity. that
1t was open and visible, and had been used
continuously for many years, this consti-
tutes sufficient notice to purchaser of the
existence of the easement.
No; 1912. Omar Lamatt VS.. State ex rel.
Harriet Lucas. Wayne c. G. Affirmed.
Mcbride, J.-This was a bastardy proceed
ing. During recess in the trial of the
cause. six of the jurors with the consent of
the relatrlx. inspected the features of the
in OF taA inrxy in,
reference to their conduct, as follows: I'm
passing upon the question as to whether
the defendant is the father of the bastard
child of Hattie Lucas you have no right to
said child, nor to inspect it or draw any
conclusion whatever from Its appear
ance. But in considering and deter
mining this case You must look
only to and consider the oral
testimony, and not the resemblance or nom
resemblance of the chlld to the defendant"
Held, that this instruction was sufficient
to cure any error that may have been COM
United so Tar as any question 10 presented
by the record. In the absence of show
ing to the contrary the jury are presumed
to have followed the instruction. The de-
Tense having drawn from the relatrix on
cross-eXamiDatiOn statements concerning
her conduct with defendant three or fOur
it was not error for the State to produce
testimony of other witnesses corroborative
of such statements.
No. 1876. Lewis Falley va. Nicholas
Chilling. TIppecanOe c. G. Rehearing de-
MED.
SUPERIOR COURT
Rocm 1-Hon. Napoleon r Taylor. Judge
Henrietta Roger vs.. Joseph X. Sharpe. IT,;
note. Judgment for plaintiff for SSU3.S9
Mary Burnett vs.. Hervey Bates. ST., ct al;
damages. Trial by jury.
Mary Z. Reel VS.. Daniel s. Reel ct al;
support. Dismissed.
T. +. Harrison VS.. NJ. f. Hamlin. JudR-
ment for plaintiff for S665.70.
Room z-Hon. James w. Harper. Judge.
Henry Thoma VS.. Cyrena Greenrod: ac-
count. Judgment for plaintiff for S75.75.
Matthias Dewald ct al. VS.. Arthur e. Brig
ham; to f0reclose mechanics lien. Judg-
ment for plaintiff for S2l5.O7.
Room 3-Hon. Lewis c. Walker judge.
John 5. SponaDce ct al. va. Francis E.
Jennings ct al; account. Taken under adj
visement.
Ne,c Suit Filed.
William Tracy VS.. Ella Tracy; divorce
Adultery.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon Edgar A Brown. Judge
Marie Gillett vs. Henry r. Gillett; for
support. Dismissed by plaintiff
Martha NJ. Brown VS.. Citizens Street.
railroad Company; damages. Jury out.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Willard f. Cox Judge
State VS.. Daniel N. Brown; embezzle-
ment Trial by jury.
Might Have Been Worse.