The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-05-11

a
and listen. and the failure of the company
TO give the statutory signal does not ex-
cuse this precautIoD. A plaintiff 10 grossly
negligent IN failing TO look In the direction
of an approaching train at some time be-
fore reaching the crossing. when. the view
being unObstrueted and the train in plain
sight. he might have avoided the injury.
1866. Pebe Wilson VS.. Thomas Bennett
ct al. Hamilton &. T.. Reversed. Elliott T..
J.-Where a bond is filed and approved in
open court at the same term and within
reasonable time after the prayer of an APP
peal, an irrogularlty will not affect the
appeal 2 Where an appeal was taken IN
term, notice WAS not required. 3. Where
there Ia no evidence tending to show that
a witness possessed skill or knowledge con-
shutting him an expert, he is not quail
ned to give an opinion.
160l6 Charles Hacker vs. August Con-
rad. Lake G. {. Affirmed. Olds, J.-Con-
tested election proceedings. The evidence
sustains the finding.
1880 l.. l.. " st. l.. consolidated Rail-
way Company vs. Mary +. Hanning. Adm'x.
Dubois T.. e.. Affirmed. Nc Bride.J.-if the
master requires of servant q service ont
side of the duties ordinarI ly incident TO
his employment and subjeotIng him TO adj
ditionai danger, he does not necessarily as
sumo the additional hazard In under TAX
ing TO perform the unusual and extra serv-
ice. even although the dangers attending
it are obvious. If the apparent danger Is
such that q person of ordinary prude ce,
exercising that prudence. would refuse TO
encounter it. the employe proceeds at his
peril. Otherwise he may undertake the
service, using care prOportioned to the APP
parent increased risk, and If III so doing he
Is injured by the employers fault he may
recover Tor the injury.
1878. Henry w. Langenberg VS. Philip
Decker. Marion 5. T.. Affirmed. Cotfey,
1.-THE power to punish for contempt be-
longs exclusively TO the courts. except in
cases W here the Constitution of State ex-
pressly confers such power upon some
other body or tribunal. The Constitution
of this State confers such power upon the
General Assembly, but upon no other body.
So much of the act of March d. 1891. con-
corning taxation, which attempts to con-
fer Oh the State Board of Tax Commission
ers power to fine and imprison for con-
tempt. Is in violation OF Section !. Act 3. of
the State Constitution. and is void. Elliott.
{. j., files separate concurrIng opinion.
1888. JOS. l.. Evans. Guardian. VS.. Con-
sumers' Gas Trust Company. Hamilton e.
T.. Dismissed
1855. VIM w. Herod vs. City of Indian
apolis. Marion c. G. Dismissed.
1899. Joseph l.. Fisher. Guardian, VS..
Josiah p. Bogue ct al. Henry c. q. Dis
missed.
l64O9. John Sibeny VS.. State. Wells c.
c. CertiorarI issued.
14464. BenIgale ~ Line ct al. VS.. State
ex rel. Nettie LoIder ct al. Huntington
Z. G. Motion to retax costs overruIcd. Re-
hearing denied.
APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS.
62S. Ralph Lewis vs.. State ex rel. Isom
Daily. Jackson G. e. Affirmed. Black, j.
When it Is intended to preserve in the
record question upon the refusal of the
court to admit testimony pertinent Ques-
tion should be propounded to the witness.
and upon the making of the objection the
party propounding the question should
state to the court what facts the witness
will testify to IN answer to the question.
49S. First National Bank of Porter Coun-
ty VS.. Mary Williams. Porter c. c. AT
hrmed. ReIDbard, J.-When the court in
structed the jury IL had the right to take
exceptions does not show that the jury
actually took this chain of evidence with
1t. There is no available error. 2. In
suit for money deposited with bank
ledgers kept by the officers of the bank
were properly excluded.
$50. Christopher X. Van Devanter. Ad-
ministrator. etc.. ct al. VS.. Marshall Nixon,
Executor. Fountain G. G.. Affirmed. Rob-
lnson. T.. IA motion for leave to issue ex-
ecuti0n after ten years Is simple motion
TO be heard by the court in q summary way.
The only question Is w neither the Judgment.
or any part thereof, remains unsatisted
any equities or cross-actlon he must resort
TO his remedy by suit In which pleading5
and u trial by jury can be had. Therefore,
the action by the court below on the plead
1ngs cannot be the basis Tor the assignment
of error in this court.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room S-Hon. Lewis O. Walker Judge
Patrick Collins VS.. Nancy S.. HAWTHORN;
to quit .!tle. Finding for aud quoting title
in defendant
Bartnick ct al: me chanics' lien. Judgment
for &l65 and foreclosure of mortgage.
May NJ. MadsIn Lawrence L. Rasmus-
sen; appeal from Feibleman. Evidence
heard and taken under advisement.
Heic SUtfs Filed.
divorce. Cruelty and abuse. No. Q.
Catharina Richter vs. William Richter;
divorce. Cruelty. No. 9.
John A. Whitecaton VS.. CbicayotS South
eastern railroad; on account and for re-
ceiyer. No. 3.
Ions L. Wall va Chicsgo x Southeast
ern railroad; on account and for receiver.
No. /.
Henry F. Potts VS.. Chicago & sonth-
ceiver. No. 2
John A. Wheeler VS.. Chicago & South
eastern railroad; on account and for re-
celver. No. 3.
LOra Mclean VS.. Chicago & Southeast
No. l.
CIRCUIT COURT
Hon. Edgar A. Brown. Judge
Pittsburg, Cincinnati. Chicago g. st.
LonIs Railway Company VS.. George Bow
man OF AL; Injunction. Motion of plaintiff
to enlarge scope of temporary injunction
heretofore issued overruled, and the mo-
ton of defendants TO dissolve the temper.
airy Injunction overruled
Malcolm A. Mcdonald ct al. VS.. Josephine
L. Mcdonald ct al; motion of defendants
to require plaintiffs to elect upon what
theory they Will prosecute their suit over
ruled. Motion of plaintiffs 10 require de-
PENDANT Josephine L. Mcdonald to produc e
for inspection a copy of will alleged to be
IN her possession sustained.
Mary Ann Holderness BENJAMIN s.
Atkinson; cognovit. Judgment for 81 10.
Nancy Millspaugh vs. Peter Registers
Estate; claim. Allowed for 81. 122.63
Charles w. Register VS.. Peter Royster's
Estate; claim. Allowed for ssl2S5
Sophia l.. SpanDuth Vs. Caroline c. Poeh-
Ter; SANDER. On trial by jury.
Ne,c Sints Fded.
Martha l.. Wallace vs. Thomas Wallace;
divorce. Cruelty.
Indianapolis Manufacturers and Carpen-
ters Union VS.. Louis II. Vollrath ct al; on
account. Demand. $3.50.
&C. Nj. Henderson IL Co. VS.. Joseph Z.
Marott; on account Demand, 1916.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Willard F. Cox. Judge
State VS.. Daniel WEIGH: robbery. Seven
years In States prison.
State VS.. Abe McPeek; petit larceny.
Trial by jury.
Docket Notes.
The argument in the long. drawn-out
case OF Mccoy against Udell was begun
yesterday before Judge Harper
The suit of Charles }. Ball of St Louis
A. A.