The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-10-16
THE COURT RECORD.


1853. Lamport VS.. l.. S. & VI. S. Railway
Company. ST. Joseph c. Z. Affirmed. Nc
Cabe, i'll. A person about to cross a rail-
way track must assume that there is dam
ger and act with ordinary prudence and
circumspection upon that assumption. 2.
The question of care at railroad crossings
as affecting the traveller is no longer, as a
rule. a question for the jury, for the guam
rum of care Is exactly prescribed as matter
of law. 3. At public crossings the public
have the right to cross the track OF a rail-
way, but in doing so all persons are re-
CURED to exercise reasonable care and eau
ton to avoid receiving injury, and the COM
pany is compelled TO exercise the same de-
gree of care 10 prevent the infection of the
injury. 4. All persons who use the track Of
a railway between the public crossings are
railroad track is injured by a collision With
and he must show affirmatively that his
fault or negligence did not contribute to the
injury before he is entitled to recover for
1902. Hamilton VS.. State of Indiana.
st. Joseph c. c. Reversed. Hackney. j.
l. Where the evidence leaves standing
some reasonable hypothesis of innocence
there can be no conviction. 2. Under the
statute it IS not necessary to allege that
deprive the owner of 1t.
172o6. Evans VS.. p, c., c.. & st. L. rail-
way. Henry c. c. Affirmed, Howard G;
know of a persons danger and can stop the
ears in time to avoid INJECTING injury upon
complaint for wlllful negligence must show
that the engineer in charge of the train
saw or had knowledge of the injured per-
sons peril and that he could have stopped
the train in time TO avoid the injury.
1872. Risbine VS.. Johnson. Montgomery.
Reversed: Monks, 1.-THE statute does, not
provide for any interest on the purchase
money paid at the tax sale-only a penalty
thereon and costs as allowed by law in
1852. Kr6m VS.. vermillion. Madison c.
c.. Affirmed. Jordan, il. The certificate
of acknowledgment is sufficient prima
| gage to entitle it to be read in evidence.
And the party on whom the burden rests,
after making nng q pr lima, fa tc rs ease; may 1n er De
dence. 2. The filing of instructions is
essential in order to make them a part OF
iI5oi. Union Railway Company VS.. Holt.
Marion G. c. Affirmed. Per curtain;
17204. Stotsenburg VS.. .Fordice. Floyd e..
1854. Manor VS.. Heffrier. Delaware c. G.
Certiorari awarded.
Appellate Court.
1894. Roberts vs.. Levitt. Shelby C. G.
brought on an appeal bond the plaintiff is
only required to show that at the time
the appeal was dismissed the party for
whom the bond was furnished had no
property subject to execution.
154s. Oldfather VS.. Gent. Marshall c. c.
Reversed. Lott il All dam. DAMAGES ss
law must be such as are the proximate
! consequences Of the injury complained OF.
2 Whenever the damage naturally HOW
from the act done 1t is sufficient to al
Iege them generally. 3. When the law
does not imply that the plaintiff sustained
damages they should be alleged win great
health produced by the act of the de-
| PENDANT should not be admitted unless ii
1877 smith VS.. Roseboon. Clinton C. C.
Reversed. Reinhard, il. "A pleading is
required to be certain to a common IN
tiif must show that the land contracted
for was not conveyed to him as 1t should
have been nc g. al H ! a rs n erevedP' ress 4 nn..
less II clearly appears from the record
that the Judgment was FOUND on a good
naraeraph of complaint overruling a de-
murrer to a bad paragraph cannot be re-
garded as harmless
Superior Court.
Room 1-John L. McMaster. Judge.
John Heard VS.. Western Improvement
Company; receiver. Receiver files final re-
port.
Samuel Thrasher VS.. George w. Stout ct
al; quiet title. Under advisement.
Room 2-Hezekiah Daley. Judge pro tenn.
Phillips A. Randall VS.. Albert Cole; at
Albert South VS.. w. II. Rueoenstein;
sprinkling lien. Judgment against defend
ant for $50 and costs. Sale ordered.
Room s-Pliny w. Bartholomew, Judge.
Ezra A. Nation ct al. VS.. Caroline Bam-
berger; note and account. Judgment by
| agreement for plaintiff for &75.97.
Kew Munter VS.. John II. HARRISON; fore
closure. Dismissed.
Criminal Court.
Frank McCray. Judge.
state VS.. Frank Willis; petit larceny. De-
PENDANT released from w~orkhouse on pay
ment OF fine and costs.
State VS.. Henry Poulter; assault and bat
terry with intent to rape. Motion TO strike
from the docket sustained. Nc Indictment
on record.
State vs.. Depritz Granger assault ana
battery with intent 10 rape. Evidence con-
| cluded and taken under AMUSEMENT.
State VS.. Charles Jones; grand larceny.