The Indianapolis journal., 1891-04-03


was quite familiar Herewith. In the fore
noon she approached the crossing. and, in
attempting TO cross, was struck by an en-
CINE and cars moving at the rate of about
five miles an honr. No bell was rung. and
the watchman gave no notice. Before en-
terlng upon the crossing appellant did not
look for approaching trains. but looked at
the watchman Appellant was person of
ordinary intelligence and possessed of good
hearing and eye-sight. When within
twenty feet of the railroad track appellant
had an unobstructed view of the track for
distance of one hundred feet north. and
view for the distance of three hundred feet.
Held. that the court did not err In render
ing judgment for the appellee, notwith-
standing the general verdict.
1851. James A. Shewalter VS.. Priscilla
A. Bergman. Jay {. c. Affirmed. Miller.
There is attached 60 the transcript
what purports to be bill of exceptions.
containing the evidence and bearing the
fiie-mark of the clerk. There Is no au-
thentication of this annex to the transcripts,
and. except for the file-marks. it does not
appear that the bill was ever filed as part
Of the cause, as required by Section 629. X.
1471s. William H. Durham VS. Harmon
MED.
16OlS Robert P. Davis ct al. VS.. Daniel
Fasig. Vigo C. c. Certiorari awarded.
APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS.
% Western Union Telegraph Company
VS.. Emanuel Gutfin. Starke G.. e. Affirmed.
New. jim declaring upon the penal stat
ute of April 8. 1885. fixing a penalty for
failure to deliver telegraphic messages, it
is not necessary to refer to the statutes. If
the complaint contains averments which
bring the case clearly within the letter and
spirit of the statute it would seems to be
sufficient. g When a telegram Is sent on
Sunday it is incumbent on the plaintiff in
such case to show that reasonable neces-
sity existed, and that the company knew
of that necessity. Reasonable necessity
and notice are shown In the following tele-
gram, addressed to q doctor: MY daugh-
ter is very sick. Come at once" 8. A fail
ure to transmit q message in the order of
time In which it was received is not mere
neglect of duty. 1t is discrimination, and
iu bad faith, and not impartial, and brings
it within the statute. 4. Appellants at
tOrney's live In Indianapolis. and bad ar
ranged with the clerk of Starke county to
case. The clerk was absent at the time
fixed for trial, and did not know of
it until after judgment was taken, when he
telegraphed the attorneys. The station
agent of appellant attended the trial as
witness. Held, that appellant was not en-
titled to be relieved from the judgment.
33. Nathan Milhollin VS.. Levi ID. Fuller.
Delaware &. G. Affirmed. Reinhard, j.
Where work is done ''by the day" the COM
pensation becomes due as each days work
erwise by special agreement. Hence. in a
complaint before justice therefor. If 1T
were necessary to charge that the debt was
due. an averment that the work was done
"by the day" would be sufficient.
5. VIM. G. Frazier VS.. Eli j. GOar. Clln-
ton c. G. Reversed. Black, c. IA per-
son who relies upon Section 263S. Revised
Statues. for his authority in taking pos
compliance with the statute. He must
show that at the time he took mp the ami
NAL he was a resident of the township. The
act Of March z, 1887. provides additional
large of certain domestic animals, and does
not repeal the former statute.
1471S. Abraham Reiter VS.. VIM. Cum
back ct al Decatur G. &. Affirmed.
Robinson. 1.-THE right given to a surety
cipal is not for the benefit of sureties
among themseIves The payment of the
debt by one surety is in no sense q volun-
tary payment, and he may proceed against
his CO. o-surety for contribution.
So. David T.. Taylor vs. Thomas Bos-
worth. Jay c. C. Affirmed. Crumpacker.
J.-Where no objection was made to the
fling of the written appointment of a
special judge at the time it was filed. and
no exception to any ruling of the court was
brought into the record by recital in the
bill of exceptions, no oquestiOn thereoni is pre-
sented. An appointmentment was first
made by court by an order duly entered IL
qualified and filed his written oath with
the clerk. which was spread on the order
book among the court proceedings signed
by the judge. Held. q substantial compli-
ance with the law.
Is. John Hartin ct al. vs. Oliver p:
Hastings ct al. Hancock G. c. Ordered
certified to the Supreme Court
SUPERIOR COURT
Room 1-Hon. Napoleon b. Taylor, Judge.
Martha E. Worley ct al. VS.. N. B. Burr ct
al; to set aside conveyance. Dismissed.
Elizabeth Marsh vs. Jedrier Marsh; di-
vorce. Decree granted plaintiff.
New Suits Filed.
| George H. Langsdale VS.. Joshua M. w.
Ian ngsdale, jr.: account. Demand, 81, 200.
Frederick w. A. Rentsch ct al; petition
| for partition.
Julia Anderson VS.. Winfield s. Anderson
divorce and custody of children. Abandon
ment.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Edgar A Brown, Judge.
The Presbyterian Church of Noblesvillt
VS.. George c. Richwine; for possession
| Trial by court.
Alice Klepfer VS.. James II. Beaver; fo,
| fraudulent transfer of real estate. Specia
finding of facts and conclusions of law il
favos of plaintiff, and conveyance set aside
Judgment in accordance with finding.
New Suits Ftied.
ThOmss Savage vs. John Strange and
| Morton Dawson: damages. Demand, $40,
| coo.
State e. rel. Simon p. Yancy VS.. Nelson
| j. Hyde; possession of Office State In
| spectOr of Oils.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Mlllard f. Cox. Judge
State VS.: William Green; grand larceny
! Continued.
State VS.. Jack Tingle; desecration of Sab
bath. Plea of guilty, and fined 81, with
/ costs.
State VS.. Frank Strarton; assault and bat
| terry with intent to kill. Intent noliieC
and plea of guilty to assault and battery
| Fined so. with costs imposed.
| The Stars aud Stripes at New Orleans.
New York Press.
There was mention this morning of 9
| charge that Italians in New Orleans had
turned the United States flag upside dowr
| during the riots there" said q well-knowr
Harlemire to me yesterday. Il know New
| Orleans well. having lived there for years
har r0ol cI Enn a<.f< h fc An0 da 4