The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-04-13
FAILED TO RETURN PAPERS
How the Appellate Court Visits Punish
ment Upon DIlatOry Attorneys.
Testing the Legality of Charges for Car Serv-
ice-Mrs. Cook Again Wins-Asks Coco
ly Damages for His Foot.

A decision of great Importance to attor-
neys and litigsnts was handed down yes
terday from the Appellate Court 1t came
up from Boone county, and is entitled
William Wee et al VS.. William Jones ct al
The appellants, it is said, had a meritorl-
Gus case. but their attorneys failed and
neglected to return important papers
which had been taken out of the courts
reach by them on giving a receipt. They
were ordered to return the papers, as the
court needed them in order to make a de-
cision, but the orders, and next a per-
emptory order. were repeatedly dis
regarded. The case was, therefore.
at last affirmed under the rules
of the court. Judge Reinhard.
who prepared the opinion. says the court
reached the conclusion that 1t was its i'm
perative duty not TO grant the motion TO
set aside the affirmance OF the case. The
opinion recites that the offending counsel
pleaded sickness. but the other side filed
affidsyits showing that the attorney had
son Who Is his law partner, and who was
attending TO the business or could have
-obeyed the order of the court The court
finds that the lllness W as not such as pre-
vented a return of the papers during the
eleven months in which they were in the
attorneys hands. The opinion concludes
as follows:
1--WE cannot consent to condone such re-
missness as has been practiced here, and
think that the embarrassments that may
follow in consequence of the Judgment of
affrmance quite mild a penalty as we
can be expected. under the circumstances.
to impose. The motion to set aside the
Judgment and order of affirmance is there
fore overruled."
1t has been long time since such an &C.
casion for enforcement of rules has arisen.
IL is expected the courts action will stir
up the dilatory lawyers of the State who
are chargeable with the same neglect. The
appellants recourse IN the above case is to
demand satisfaction, by suit. if necessary,
of their counsel.
Car-Serviee Charges in Court.
In the suit of William McGinnIs against
thePanhandle railroad. begun before Judge
Walker in the Superior Court yesterday.
point is brought mp for the first time
In this city, under the interstate-commerce
law which. if won OF the plaintiff. will.
doubtless, establish precedent that will
be generally acted upon by all the con-
eignees similarly affected. Mr. McGinnis
owns plsnlng-mill. and some time ago he
received a carload of lumber which was
ing sent TO his mill over the private
switch which he owns. The Interstate
commerce Commission established law
making 1t obligatory upon railroads to de-
TO the consignee. McGinnis refused to &C.
cept the lumber from the Panhandle yards.
and under law OF that company they as
sessed him heavily for trackage. McGln.
mis- is now suing for demurrage.
Asks $4,000 for a Foot.
John Rafferty,, an employe In the factory
of Hetherin gton 81 Berner mp to the 18th of
last month has sued that firm for SIS. 900
for personal injuries suffered on the above
date while engaged in assisting to hoist q
1.5OO- pound iron column. The rope broke
and the column fell on RAFFERTY, foot, mash
ing it and laying him up ever since. He
claims his medical bill has been 81 500, and
still the Door doctors claim their services