The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-06-13
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1920. Holt VS. Rockhill. Huntington c. C.
Affirmed. McCabe. IL. A bill of excep-
tons not being a part of the. record in this
court, the alleged errors relied on in sup
port of the motion for new trial are not
presented for decision. 2. There must be a
proper showing that the long-hand manu-
script in the transcript was filed in the
clerks Office. g. The statute authorizes the
original long-hand manuscript of the evil
dence to be certified instead of a transcript
thereof after being filed and incorporated in
a bill of exceptions. 4. strict compliance
with the statute requires that the long-hand
manuscript be filed in the clerks office be-
fore il is incorporated in the bill OF excep-
tons. and that fact must be shown in the
transcript in the bill of exceptions or in
some other appropriate way 5. The general
provisions as to appeals require a transcript
of the record of the trial court to be cerfi-
fed here, under which no original paper or
document belonging TO that record can be
certified here, and If so certified mrst be
disregarded, because not a part of the rec
ord in this court.
Reversed. Monks. il. trustee or guar
dian has equitable right to be reim-
bursed for all reasonable expenses properly
incurred in the execution of his trust, and
the expenses OF a trustee in the execution OF
his trust a lien upon the estate. and he
cannot be compelled TO part with the prop.
erty until the disbursements are paid. and
the person for whom such trust is held is
bound to take notice of all equitable liens
2. When the ward arrives at the age OF
twenty -one years the guardian shall fully
account and pay over to the proper person
all the estate Of the ward remaining in his
hands. g. When the ward becomes of ace
he has right to sue upon the bond of TIE
guardian without an accounting and with
out demand.
Appellate Court.
1893. l.. & y. Railway Company VS.. Cron-
bach Gibson c. c. Reversed. Davis, H.
/. In every case involving actionable negli-
gence the following elements are necessary
ta) The existence of a duty on the part OF
the defendant to protect the plaintiff from
the injury of which he complains: tb)a failure
by the defendant 10 perform that duty; lc)
an injury TO the plaintiff from such failure
of the defendant p To constitute willful
injury the act which produced IL must have
been intentional. or have been done under
such circumstances as evinced a reckless
disregard for the safety OF others and a
Willingness TO iniiict the injury complained
of. g. The special finding overrides the gen.
eral verdict when both cannot stand, and
their antagonism must be apparent upon
the face OF the record. T. In order for a
person TO recover for injuries caused by
the negligence he must be wholly free from
fault.
Ii2S L., y. A. e. C. Railway Company vs.
Hendricks. Monroe G. c. Petition for re-
hearing overruled. Gavin. J.-While a rec
ord is undoubtedly the best evidence. yet
when fact provable properly by writings
is permitted TO be proved by parole IL is
established. and the objection TO IL should
have been made at the time IL was offered.
1887. Terry VS.. Proyident Fund Society.