The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-01-04
PETITION FOR REHEARING
The Acknowledgement Takes Expected
Action in the Gerrymander Case.
The Reasons Set Forth Why 1t Should Be
Granted-Riding Bailiffs-General Term
Higher Courts 0rganize-0ther Cases


the gerrymander case was filed. yesterday,
with the Clerk of the Supreme Court by
Attorney-PeneraI Smith. In the petition.
the reasons advanced being quoted here
after, no ~allusion Is made to the waiver OF
the right to appeal. by reason of which the
opinion deciding the case was certified
down. and the case legally closed. It is
the OK peetation of the interlOping AttOr-
ney-generalt that when this fact Is pleaded
In bar by the counsel for the
relator he will then attempt to
show cause why one of the best
established rules of the court should be
set aside to please himself and the partisan
ring who fear an honest and fair appor-
tionment will dispossess themselves of
their present prestige of power. The ring
does not hesitate to assume that the new
supreme judges will bow to the dictates of
this gang. The following Is the substance
of the petition:
holding that 1t had jurisdiction of the subject
matter in this case as far rs the same is shown
In the allegations OF the complaint:
2. The court erred in deciding that the act or
March D, 1891. appOrtiOning Senators and Rep
resentatives among the several counties OF the
State Ia unconstitutional.
3. The court erred I'm holding that the act of
March ), 1879, aDportiOning Senators and Rep
resentatives among the several counties was un-
constitutional.
4. That the court erred in deciding that
proximate equality, as related TO the SUD
1ect OF Legislative appointments. was IN
any way a judicial rule or order, since the In
stance cited in the opinion shows that the same
was a legislative rule adopted upon report In q
legislative body for the government OF its own
action in the apportiOnment OF members OF Con-
gress among the several counties.
3. That the court erred in holding that IL had
INV irrfs sQrfnn 4 rnuica nr RnnfPnl he RnnGflfH-
tiOnal discretion of the LEGISLATURE OF the State in
disposing of fractions of population and In the
grouping Of counties for purposes OF apportlon.
ment wherein there is no express provision or
the Constitution violated.
The new complexion of the court having
thus emboldened the Attornsy-general.
1t is now IN order to have the decision
declaring the registration act uncOnstitu-
tiOnal set aside 1t is whispered that q Pc
titlon Is TO be filed to-day or tomorrow for
that purpose.
VIII Appoint a Riding Bailin.
Those Democratic officials who are now
compelled to conduct the business of their
Offices under the provisions of the fee-and-
salary bill are not nearly so loud in their
landatIons of the Legislature which passed
the bill as were the campaign orators who
drew upon it for q Roodly amount of ma
terial. In it's practical workings the
law is seen to be O failure. In the
sheriff's office the criticism of the
the denunciation of IL very bitter.
By the law the sheriff is allowed $4,000 up
on which to run his Office. This amount
il is claimed is entirely inadequate. ss the
expenses OF the office nav always been fully
S1.0G0 per month. Now sin e the refusal to
allow the sheriff mileage for the removal of
prisoners to the penitentiaries and to other
counties. the margin lett for the sheriff out
of bia hilary IN 10 aatd will no varv ANAL
if there be any margin at all.
The presentation of this now difficulty
prompted Sheriff Emmett to ask for the APP
pointment of riding bailiffs for each of
the courts. Emmetts attorney yesterd ay
appeared before Judge Brown with the
petition for the appointment of such q
baliff for the Circuit Court. Judge Brown
thought the law very plain providing for
the appointment of such officers and said
he would appoint one for his court when
ever the business of the court made it nee
egsary.
William Adair's Troubles.
William Adair brought suit in the Cir.
cult Court against the Big Four railroad
company. asking $40, 900 for the death of a
son. In its answer the company set forth
an alleged compromise. wherein AdaIr &C.
eepted 500 in full satisfaction of the
claim for damages. This offer wa:
AhdAo aAo SNOBkC IA
when the company by its attorney induced
Adairs attorney TO withhold suit, saying
they would settle the claim. Adair, through
his attorney, e~ndeavored to avoid the Of.
feet of the acceptance by setting up fraud
The point as to the validity of this reply
was raised on demurrer. and decided
against Adnir by Judge Brown, who held
that unless the parties had been put in
action could not be maintained. He also
decided that the reply was not sutficienl
for the purpose of showing fraud.
General Term Court.
The Superior Court in general term, yes
terday, considered the case of George f.
Davis against the State for 81, 900 for ca.tl.
furnished the Plaintieid Reform School. The
case was taken under Amusement and 8
decision Will be given this morning.
In the case of Sarah May against thu
State for Sl5. OcO for services rendered al
supervising architect OF the Prison NORTH
the State flied a demurrer to the complaint
which was sustained. 1t was the unanf
nous decision Of the court that a clalu
must be presented within fifteen years
from the time it accrues, This decision
will probably dispose Of q number of claims
on file. The attorneys for the claImant
prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court
which was granted. The case of Joseph
Madden against the State was partially
beard and went over until to-day.
Thrown Ont of COurt.
The case of Mrs. Van Walters against at
torney Clinton L. Hare for libel vas thrown
out of the Circuit Court on demurrer yes.
terday. The Board of Children's Guardi
ans filed a petition over a year ago askin,
for the possession of Mrs. Van Walters.
children. which was granted. SnbsequentI,
she married o man named Wilkins. an(
"a, ~ ntt,t nro n n yha Ion
possession of her children. The case vas de
eide against her, and she appealed to tn.
Supreme Court. In his brief filed in Oh,
case Hare made some serious charge,
against Mrs. Van Walters. 1t was for The
publication of these charges in the brIe.
that tie woman sued and asked e.. OO
damages. Upon the demurrer Judg,
Brown held that Hare had not exceeded
the privileges of an attorney in the matter
contained in the brief.