The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-24
THE COURT RECORD.
Court.

17427. Reed VS. State. Hancock c. C.. At
frmed. Jordan. il. The record should
lions. 2. Affidavits in support of alleged
ground of misconduct assigned in the mo-
ton for a new trial SHOULD be brought in
order of the court. s. Under the law of
this State an assault and battery is not
included in any of the degrees of homicide
in such a manner as to authorize under a
charge of the latter a conviction of the
former. 4. Instructions should be relevant
to the issues in each particular case APP
plicable to the facts and evidence therein.
5. The record must affirmatively show that
the error complained of was harmful to
the party aggrieved thereby to be avail
able on appeal,
Company VS.; Pickey. Dearborn c: G. At
frmed. Monks. il The State of Indiana
of the civil and criminal laws of the State
on the Ohio river where 1t constitutes the
southern : u t wpicn boundary ean q t6 OF s 5ne Ssa df s and 5ns
and return is the same as if the Ohio river
was wholly within the, State of Indiana. 2.
The statutes of this State give citizens of
other States the power to maintain an ae-
ton for damages, which may also be main
tanned by his administrator. 3. On appeal
a cause will not be reversed simply on the
a decision on the ground of excessive dam
ages they must appear to be grossly ex-
ISIS. b. & o. & c. Railway Company VS.
Paul. Steufben G. c.. Reversed. Hackney,
il. A railroad company owes a trespasser
no protection against negligence 2. The
person Of Whom damages must be Sought
by an employee to recover for a personal
injury.
C. Reversed. McCabe, c. il When there
is no allegation that a contract is in writing
the eSumptio is that it was parol. 2.
In order to take a contract for sale of land
out of the statute of frauds when the
same is made by .parol, it should be alleged
contract. 3. In an application for the spe-
cola n land fna nnlIrf ChnlIid hn statistical
the claim is reasonable and just. f. Courts
of equity will generally decree a specific
performance where the contract is certain,
fair. for an ADEQUATE consideration and cap
able of being performed.
170S2. Butler VS.. Thornburgh. Henry c. c.
Affirmed. Howard, il. A wife need not
joinJin the execution of a. purchase money
mortgage. 2 An exception to a ruling is
where questions of law are reserved.
na l1S77, " G.. R eci G. M 8 st; L Railway Kf, comi
upon agreement of parties.
1897. Alderman VS.; Savage. Allen c. c.
Tr rams to Appellate Court; w.,
Randolph c. C. A. ]. Cranor's name ordered
to be stricken out.
Appellate Court.
1928. Wilhelm VS.. Scott. Grant C. C.
Affirmed. Ross, C. il Replevin is simply
a possessory action and ownership is not
necessarily involved in such an action. 2.
When the plaintiff charges unlawful possess
sion he must prove his right to possession.
8. Possession is only prima facie evidence
VI. He OMilGISuIp VI pSISCIa RlORC 4.
When it appears that an officer has done his
duty in ~impounding stock the owner can get
them released only upon the payment of
the necessary expense attached.
1857. Watts VS.. Moffitt. Jefferson c. C.
Affirmed. Gavin, il. Where a husband
holds out his wife as his agent both by con-
dust and acquiescing in her acts he will be
bound by her contracts until those ac-
customed to deal with her are notified by
the husband that they do SO at their own
responsibility. 2. The husband forbidding
the wife to deal with certain persons will
not release him from her contracts where
the third party rely upon her being his
agent and at the same time IN the habit of
dealing with her.
1924. l., n. A. & C. Railway Company VS..
Miller. Floyd c. c. Reversed. Davis, j.
In order TO have private premises considered
and treated as d highway the public must
claim the right under some color of title
and a person walking along or on a railroad
constructed on such premises will be con-
sidered as a trespasser.
1873. Board of Commissioners VS.. Trees.
Shelby G. G.. Affirmed. Reinhard. III.
Where the county by its agents enters upon
a mans land and converts a quantity of dirt
TO a public use there is an implied contract
that 1T will pay for it's relevant value. 2. A
person wronged by such actions may waive
the tort and sue upon an implied contract.
Superior Court.
Room 2-L. NJ. Harvey, Judge.
James E. Mann ct al. VS.. the Drew e
Watson Mining Company; levee lien Jude-