The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-02-17
THE COURT eco
Supreme Court Opinfons.

Affirmed. Coffey, J.-Assault and battery
with intent to murder. 1t would require q
Court TO interfere with the ruling Of a
trial court refusing to postpone the trial
OF a cause tSs on Ge, account Of public TRa opinion
tons Of a defendant in any way connect
ed with the matter under Investigation are
always admissible, but before the declara-
tons are admissible OF course there must
be some proof that they were made by the
defendant. 3. An admission by the de-
cutting attorney as to his guilt was admis-
sible. 4. There was no error In the giving
and refusing OF instructions.
1861. City of Terre Haute VS.. Blake.
Nigo S. G. Transferred. Howard. c.. j.
When a proceeding ia to enforce the right
or a property owner TO the damages
relief is a money judgment and not for a
mandate, and jurisdiction is in the Appel
late Court.
VS.. George II. Kendall. washington G e.
Affirmed. Hackney, 1.-THE order in which
made does not determine the character of
the pleading and wherefrom the facts al
legged the court can ascertain with GER
sidering all Of the allegations 1t can fairly
be said that there has been a reasonable
compliance with the rules of pleading, the
pleading should be sustained.
1880. Milburn VS.. Phillips ct al. Boone
C. c. Rehearing denied. Daily, J.-If a
statement concerning the record is made
W OChAloG O4N4OCokfOlltu dlNQ uIGADdlUG
by opposing counsel the court may rely on
it to be accurate.
Appellate Court Opinions.
800. Currie Fertilizer Company VS.. By
field ct al. Jennings c. e.. Rehearing de-
40. City OF Lebanon vs.. Mccoy. Mont
gomery c. G. Reversed. Ross, j. Davis,
c. j., dissents-The evidence in this case
fails to show that appellant employing ap-
pellee was guilty Of any negligence which
caused the injury to appellee while en-
CARED in its service, but that injury was the
cident to the services which he assumed.
1O4S; Shearer VS.; Peele & CO. Hunting
does not appear That q piaintifr is not a a
corporation, or the name is such as might
be used by a corporation, it must be re-
as plaintiff is concerned that it is a cor
poration. 2. When a contract reads II
hereby guarantee the payment of the
amount" etc. Held: 1t was an original
undertaking. and the make was RESPONSE
BILE at once on his direct promise to pay.
Superior Court.
Room s-Pliny w. Bartholomew. Judge.
William Roseberry VS.. Ollie Roseberry;
divorce. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
John Long vs.. Mamie Long; divorce. Dis
missed for want of prosecution.
Foster-Bennett Lumber Company VS.. Hen
ry Behrens ct al; foreclosure. On trial by
court
Ropm 2-J. W.. Harper. Judge.
William Stumph VS.. Elbridge. c. Cook:
suit on note. Tried by court. Finding and
judgment for Plaintiff for $5i.5o.
Henry Schnull ct al. VS.. William p. Etr.s
ct AL; suit to foreclose mortgage. Tried by
court. Finding and judgment for plaintiff
for $15S.S7.
John NJ. Bohnne VS.. Charles f. Kregelo;
suit on account. Tried by jury. Jury re-
turned verdict for plaintiff for $1SO.4S.
Otto Somerlad VS.. Union Railway Com
pany; damages. on trial by jury.
Room flames NJ. Winters. Judge.
Percy frost VS.. Citizens Street-railway
Company; damages. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Edgar A. Brown. Judge.
South Meridian Saving and Loan Associa-
tion VS.: Geo: Buehler's Estate. Claim al
lowed for $40.
H. S. Cunningham VS.. Geo. Buehler's Es-
tate. Claim allowed by court for 500.
Bernard NJ. Mauer VS.. Frank NJ. Mauer
ct al; contest of will of Anton Mauer. On
Henry c. Seyfried VS.. VIM. Dickson ct al.
Plaintiff files motion for new trial.
VIM. A, Rhodes VS.; Town of Brightwood;
Harvey, special Judge.
New. Suits Filed.
Emanuel Blatt VS.. Rose Oettinger; TO
quit title. Superior Court. Room ..
Lee Eulmer VS. f. VI. Massey; Sprinkling
lien. Superior Court. Room 2.
Asa o. Ruse VS.. William NJ. Davis ct al.
complaint on note; Superior Court, Room /.
Rose Shea VS.. Daniel Shea; divorce. Su-
perior Court, Room 2.
Euphemia W. Miller VS.. Michael Clune;
damages. Demand, $500. Superior Court,
Henry Noting VS.. G.. F. Young: sprink-
ling assessment. Superior Court, Room 2.
Henry Noting VS.. William d. Hough;
sprinkiing assessment Superior Court,
Room 3.
indianapolis Rolling Mil Company VS..
Levi II. Bone; suit on Judgment. Superior
William d. Wiles ct al. VS.. Levi H. Bone;
suit on Judgment. Superior Court, Room 1.