The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-08

in q the demurrer is available error.
7a Gaar. Scott g. Co. VS.. Christian u.
Rose ct al. Allen s. &. Affirmed. New. j.
There is no irreconcllable conflict be-
tween the general verdict and the answers
to the interrogatorles, and the former must
stand.
S47. VIM. H. Wells ct al. VS.. Bradley, Hob
ton & Co. White C.. G. Affirmed. Rein
hard, J.-Affidayits to set aside default
the force and effect of which is to be con-
strued by the court on appeal. but they are
regarded in the nature OF dispositions and
the rules for weighing paroi testimony are
applied. Ii there was any evidence tend
ing to support the ruling at nisi prius this
court will not reverse.
400. AIonzo l.. Jaqus VS.. Ollie Wood
bury. Jay Z. Z. Crumpacker. 1.-THE
second paragrsph OF complaint refers to
the first in describing the manner OF sign
ing the note sued on. The averment re-
specting the signature may be regarded as
surplusage. 1t is alleged that the note was
executed by the defendants. and the copy
filed with the complaint, IN obedience to
the requirements of the practice act, must
be looked into In determining the charac-
ter of the signatures.
$40. Lyman Lockwood. Administrator,
VS.. Charles Woods. Dekalb c. G. Reversed.
Robinson, Jan answer setting up usury,
which does not state how much of the note
sued on was usurious, or the amount of IN
tcrest to be recovered, or specify the par
ticulars of the contract upon which the
usurious interest was included In the note,
or the quaDtum OF the usurious interest
that was agreed upon, IS bad. Even II the
answer contained the necessary averments
to constitute usury, it would be bad, as 1t
is pleaded in bar Of the action, and it Is
not full defense.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room s-Hon Lewis c. Walker Judge
~ q.
/. X. X. Co. ct al; TO quiet title. Finding for
and quoting title in defendants
Indianapolis Brewing Company VS.. Hugo
Kingston: account. Judgment for 1852 so.
Indiana Patf VS.. Samuel Y. Paff; divorce.
Decree granted plaintiff.
James W. Brown va Margaret NJ. Sproule:
toquiet title. Finding for and quieting title
In plaintiff
New Suits Filed.
John Fl. Reyer VS.. Lake Erie 81 Western
Railroad Company; damages Demand.
$1,000.
The Rural Savings and Loan Association
We. William Bastenick ct al; mechanics
lien bond. Demand. 500.
Sample Loftin vs. Joseph f. Flack; to
SURROGATE first for second mortgage.
EDOch NJ. SILVER VS.. Cleveland, Cincin-
natl, ST. Louis x Chicago Railway Com
pany; account Demand, $3.50.
Conrad II. Shellhouse ct al. Vs. Martin G..
Anderson; note. Demand, $500.
..
divorce and custody of children. Restrain
ing order. Cruelty.
Aurelius Boaz VS.. Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Chicago * st. Louis Railway Company;
damages. Demand, $3.50.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Edgar A. Brown. Judge.
In re, petition of David +. GLADDEN. ct al.
for drainage. TwO-thirds of freeholders
demonstrating. Cause dismissed at cost of
petitioners.
George W. Hall VS.. Elbrldge H. Rabbit;
on account. Trial by court. Judgment
against defendant for e32 "a
Catharine Deter VS.. Michael Gimbel; on
note. Trial by court. Finding for defend
and and Judgment against plaintiff fox
costs.
Ne,c Suits Filed.
Jennie SteIerberg VS.. Charles w. Steier-
berg; divorce and custody of children.
Cruelty and Infdelity. Alimony. 1000
Harriet +. Hays VS.. Masonic Mutual
Benefit Society; policy. Demand $1,000
George M. Smith Va. Cincinnati. Hamil.
ton & Indianapolis railroad; damages. De-
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Willard =. Cox. Judge.
State VS.. Fred Lehman; petit larceny.
Evidence heard and taken under advise
ment.
State vs.. John McGreevey; petit larceny
Release on own recognizance.
State VS.. James Wilson; burglary. Or
trl6l DY j ufY.&a 49, ga c4lttrT