The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-11-28
SOLELY by what he did on the occasion Of

solely by what he did on the occasion of
his injury.
VS.. Boice. Treasurer, ct al. Benton c. c.
Affirmed. Hackney. 1.-THE fee and salary
act Of 1891 as to county treasurers is I'M
1nl4 Priest ct al. VS.. Lackey. Fulton c.
G.. Affirmed. McCabc, J.-When the mis-
when applied to the subject matter upon
which, as its language d~iscloses 1t was in
tended to operate, such mistake may be
1885. Wishard VS.. Lenhart ct al. Marion
c. c.. Dismissed.
firmed. Coffey., C. The SOth day of May
is not a legal holiday within the meaning
of Section 2oSs.. r. $, prohibiting the sale
1862. Hughes ct al. VS.. Hughes. Clinton
G. c. Affirmed. Daley, 1.-THE clerk does
not state that the bill of exceptions was
lows the clerks certificate TO the transcript
and is, therefore, outside the record. The
1854. Lebanon, etc. Co. vs.. Griffin. Clin-
ton C. c.. Reversed. Howard. J.--Action TO
recover damages on account of the escape
surface of a public highway. Instructions
in this case based upon the theory Of
as the complaint alleges that he was a
strong. active. intelligent. energetic boy of
i7ois. Thomas, Administrator. VS.. c. & E.
Railway Company. Huntington G. G. Dis
missed. MC12De, J.-1utIc va ~ maj
judgment in this case. A demurrer by APP
pellee to the evidence was sustained ana
no appeal lies; CAN'T r A.
firmed. Daley. J.-It Is not necessary that
a woman should use all the physical force
she lbs in RES resistance tan ; against bsxe ha rape, ov DTt
come by the force of defendant
1875. Bonfay ct al VS.. Goar ct al; Tip
appeal in a ditch proceeding involves a
particular matter embraced in one or more
issues it is the duty of the Circuit Court
to try such matter de novo and to render
a final judgment thereon, after which the
cause may be remanded to the Board OF
aaccordance with such judgment. 2. The
question as to whether the proposed ditch
is more Comprehensive. or whether it en-
sary to accomplish the drainage Of petit
toners lands in the cheapest and best
manner is a question exclusively for the
viewers, whose decision is not subject to
review by the courts.
17248. State ex rel. McCay VS.. Krost-
Lake e: c Reversed. Hackney. Lone
recording a. mortgage by a recorder who
has been elected since the fee-and-salary
act of 1891 went into effect.
Appellate Court.
1895. Ravens VS.. American Fire Insurance
Company. Vigo c. c. Affirmed. Davis, j.
Where letters claimed to create a con-
tr TsS,. are not : certain and definite de 5doe in par par
whole correspondence between the parties
in relation to their subject matter in order
to determine the intention of the parties.
1895. Tow of Andrews ct al. VS.. Sellers.
Huntington G. e. Reversed. Reinhard, j.
"A complaint to recover the possession of
personal property, whether immediate de-
livery is claimed or not, will be sufficient
to withstand a demurrer without an aft
davit. as required by r. S, 1884, p. 12S6, 12s7.
But IL il appear upon the trial that the
property was taken for a tax the plaintiff
would not be entitled to Judgment. 2. The
marshal of a town having In his hands a
tax duDlicate. With the prODer warrant at
tached, is not confined in making seizures
and sales to such property. of the taxpayer
town whose officer he is, but he may act
in that behalf throughout the county.
1883. Brown VS.; harness. Howard c. c.
Affirmed. Lott, 1.-THE award of abstract
ors may be corrected or modified by the
court when imperfect in some matter of
form, not affecting the merits of the con-
troversy, appearing upon the face of the
record.
1862. coburn VS.. Whitaker & Garrett &
The transcript must be filed and notice of
the appeal issued to the appellee within
one year from the rendition of the judg-
ment-. There is nothing showing that APP
pellee's counsel misled appellant or pre-
vented from perfecting the appeal.
rion c. c. Affirmed. Gavin, 1.-THE order
granting time to file a bill Of exceptions
after term must be made during term. and
IT must appear in the order boC<. a recital
in the bill is not sufficient.
1926. Anderson VS.. Citizens Street-rail-
Iodu Company Marion =. u. reversed.
Lott, J.-Whenever an instruction under
takes to declare negligence or no negligence
as a matter of law it should enumerate all
ton to the injury. .. Whenever bodily or
mental feelings of a person are material
feeiinss are orisin lsra iev iSfp'essio TSe OIL sf Suen
ment OF a sick person of the nature and ef-
feet of a malady or injury under which he
are admissible as original evidence, Wheth-
er made to a medical attendant or other
person.
1859. Cosard VS.. Lee. Boone c. C.. Re-
versed. Reinhard. J.-If words are suffi-
gent to charge the plaintiff with incest,
are actionable whether they charge a crime
or not. 2. When IT is sufficiently ayerred
that words were spoken with. a slanderous
can be given that construction. and were so
understood. it matters not whether they
S %er sut aSf19aaDie' PM eS se' s or not s1 they will
words are capable of conveying the mean
ing claimed for them and also of an inno-
cent meaning, the innuendo should show
not only that the words were spoken in a
slanderous sense but were so understood.
1855. Froman VS.. Jenner ct al. Crawford
e. Affirmed. Ross, c. 1.-THE evidence
%sustains the verdict.
LISP. Boord, etc, VS.. Stock. Gibson c. c..
Rehearing denied.
1861; Heaton VS.. Lynd ct al. Decatur C.
1904. Continental Insurance COMPANY VS..
ch 1eaS Henry E; c. Remittqr
VT" ivxS, ~. az 81. Il. INditTOAu COM
pany VS.. Harper. Grant c. C. Rehearing
denied.
1916. Holland VS. Spell. Henry c.. c. Mo-
ton to substitute granted.
1893. State VS.. Neiser. Allen c. c. At
nrmed. Reinhard, a witness was
qualified. as shown by previous testimony.
TO answer 1T was not improper to ask him
whether there was or was not sufficient
material to make fencing without cutting
timber. Where evidence was competent 10
md one party defendant it is admissible
and the other defendants should ask the
court for an instruction limiting the evil
dence to such defendant.
l3Z9. L., N. a. & c. Railroad COMPANY
VS.. Cook. Monroe G.. c. Affirmed. DAVIS.
J.-Where an inexperienced person travel,
Ing on a railroad and is nislead bv state
ments made by some of The company's en-
wrong station whereby she suffers in.l ries.
she may recover.
14O7. Walker ct al. VS.. Commissioners
Monroe c.. c. Affirmed. Gavin, i'm a
complaint which alleges the execution of a
| gravel road bond, and that 'it is due and
unpaid and no general liability resting
upon the county to pay and no failure TO
| perform any duty owing from Ii to appeI-
lants there is no cause of action and would
be bad on demurrer.
1918. Davis & Rankin ct al. VS.. Mckinney.
Jay G.. G. Affirmed. Davis, jim an ac-
ton on a contract for building supplies and
fixtures which reads 1.-The undersigned stock
holders are to be held responsible only for
the contract is the several contract of each
of the stockholders and not the joint con-
tract of all.
1889. Pemberton VS.. State. Grant q r.