The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-04-01
THE COURT RECORD.


HIS. Miller VS.. The state. kosciusko G.
that violates Sections sl26, SIS, r. S, 1894.
may be prosecuted by atfidavit and informa-
ton ana where the evidence shows that
the defendant was a warehouseman, as de-
scribed IN the act alleged 10 have been vio-
lated. that ne received the grain from the
prosecuting witness for storage and gave
him receipt therefor. and that ne re-
moved said grain beyond his control without
the consent Of the holder OF the receipt. IL
is sufficient to sustain the necessary ale
cations based upon the above mentioned
sections of the statute.
1902 Iron VS.. Yohn. Marion c. c. Az
assigned as error In this court cannof be re-
viewed. ?. A bill OF exceptions 10 merit the
attention OF this court should be capable or
discovery in the record without requiring
search of the transcript and the gathering
together OF such fragments as may appear
suitable to such bill and without tearing
connected single documents or entries.
1885. Legies VS.. Paine. vanderburg c.
1884. Fesler VS.. Brayton. Marion s. c.
Brief on motion to dismiss ordered nled
within ten days.
Appellate Court.
1890. Hairless VS.. Consumers Gas Com
pany Henry c. c. Reversed. Lotz The
plaintiff in an injunction proceeding is not
liable TO the defendant for the damages oc-
casioned after the dissolution OF the order,
Independently OF the undertaking, and aside
from malice and want OF probable cause.
1860. Wahl vs.. Shoulders. Spencer {. g
Reversed. Davis, il In an action Tor
gence of another 1t must be made to appear
by averment or by facts and circumstances
that the plaintiff did not contribute &c the m
jury. 2. Proof OF defendants negligence
does not necessarily show that the plaintiff
was free from negligence
1885 Lennon VS., Reed. Noble {. c. Az
firmed Reinhard. ia person that borrows
money. agreeing to repay the same with a
county order, may be required 10 repay the
same in money on failure to deliver the order
he
2Os7 Mcqueen VS.. City of Elkhart. Elk
hart c. c. Affirmed. Ross, il While IL
Exercise irf au diIsencs and care to keep it's
streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe
condition. 1t does not guarantee absolute
safety 10 those who use them IN proper
manner. 2. 1t is for a city 10 determine and
adopt not only the grade for its streets ana
sidewalks. but also when they should be
ment should be made. 3. Where sidewalk
is properly constructed. the mere fact or
reexns anS making It Slippery Win not cre
ate a liability on the part OF the city for an
injury to one falling thereon.
Superior Court.
Room 2--Lawson NJ. Harvey. Judge.
Egan Tailoring Company VS.. Horace f.
Sebren; notes. Judgment against derenu-
ant for go and costs
Charles H. Albert VS.. William A Holtz:
account. Judgment against defendant
Samuel S. Rhodes VS.. Rice Hume ct al:
dismissed by plaintiff. Judgment against
plaintiff for costs.
Edward d; Newton VS.. William j. Eisele:
August Rawn ct al. VS.. william E. Klein
smith ct al; injunction and damages. On
trial by court.
Room s-Pliny W. Bartholomew. Judge.
BENJAMIN A. Sands VS.. J.. ID. & W. Rail-
road Company ct al; foreclosure. On riai
by court.
Circuit Court.
Edgar A. Brown. Judge.
Anna Duross VS.. James Duross; applica-
ton for divorce. Trial by court: divorce
granted plaintiff with maiden name
Chappens ct al. VS. Board OF Comm,s-
sioners of Hancock County. judgment py
agreement; $50 and costs.
The Wadsworth Salt Company VS.. George
Kreitle!n. Trial by court; finding for plain
Margaret A. Roberts VS.. Susan schoheld.
Finding for defendant; judgment against
'' Wrought Iron Bridge Company VS.. Board
of Commissioners of Hendricks and Morgan
Counties. Finding for the defendants.
New Suits Filed.
Mary E Bourne VS.. John NJ. Bourne; suit
fog divorce. Circuit Court
Minnie Halbert VS.. Thomas Halbert: suit
, for divorce. Superior Court. Room l.
Sarah Z. Miller VS.. John NJ Miller; suit
for divorce. Superior Court. Room 3.
Nellie Milburn VS.. John Milburn; suit for
divorce Superior Court Room 3
Georgia Fowler VS.. James Fowler; suit
The Travellers Insurance Company VS.
James ". Gore ct al; suit on note. Superior
Court, Room j.
Criminal Court.
State VS.. John Baptist: assault and battery.
Fined 81.
State VS.. H. NJ. stilweil; assault and bat
terry Found not guilty.
State VS.. Joseph Krenzer; assault ana Dat
| terry. Fined 81 and costs
State VS. Louis Seidenstcker; keeping ss-
| loon open during unlawful hours. Taken UNI
| der adyisement.