The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-10-14
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1887. Young vs. Citizens Street-railroad
Company. Hancock c. c.. Affirmed. Nc
Cabe. il. Ii there is nothing TO prevent
a person sesing or hearing an approaching
danger, but he does not avail himself OF
the opportunity, MS conduct will be negii-
eence per Sc, and if he is injured it viii be
presumed that he did not Look, or, ii he did,
that he did not heed what he saw. The
law will presume that he saw what he
could nave seen if he had looked and heard
what he could have heard If he had lis
tened. 2. Ordinary care is such care as
a person of ordinary prudence exercises un>
der the circumstances of the danger to be
apprehended, and the greater the danger
the higher the degree of care required to
constitute ordinary care, the absence of
whieh is negligence.
1877. White VS.. Prifogle. Union c.. c.
Petition for rehearing overruied. Jordan,
1.-THE Friday Immediately preceding the
Monday on which a regular session of the
Board of commissioners begins is the last
ton 3 of the acts of 1895 (acts of 1895, page
24S) can be filed against an application
made at that session for a license to retail
1882. City of Shelbyville VS.. c., c., c. &
St. L. Railway Company. Shelby C. G..
Affirmed. Howard, III. In an action by a
the ordinance, the court, by overruling the
demurrer of the city to the answer of the
ordinance. in effect holds the ordinance TO
be void. 2. An unreasonable exercise of
power on the part of a city is an attempt
to DO something that is beyond its author
ity and renders the act invalid. 3. Where
a city is given power to leaisiate upon a
given subject and the manner or it's exer-
else is not prescribed, an ordinance passed
in pursuance thereof must be d reasonable
exercise of the power conferred in order to
be valid. 4. A city cannot, under the guise
of protecting its citizens from passing
trains at public crossings, enter into a
general system of street lighting at every
point where a railroad track Grasses a pub
tic street b. The powers granted under
Section 5173, II. S. 1884, is general, and the
manner of it's exercise must be reasonable
and ln6ar said apf If WAS the inftlfi0n of
the Legislature to give cities the right to
require light from a railroad company at
its crossing as it might be required to
maintain a fagman or gate for the same
purpose. 6. A city cannot by its ordinance,
compel Il railroad company TO select certain
kinds of lights to be used In lighting the
ere ssing.
17149. Boots vs.. Ristine. Montgomery C.
c; Petition for rehearing overr'Iled.
1850. Stauffer VS.. Mining and Gas Com
Biackford c. c. Motion to dismiss
ISL. Harrison VS.. Stanton. Marion C. c.
Motion to dismiss deferred.
1850. D~augherty VS.. Wheeler. Fulton c.
c. Petition TO reinState oyerruied.
1909. Combs vs.: Rail Mill. Floyd C. C.
Motion TO amend granted.
Appellate Court.
2o7s. Furgason vs.. Citizens Street-rail-
Ross. il. A~ole-bodied persons, whether
men or women, who appear physically able
to get on and off the cars the carrier is
ordinarily under no legal obligation to as
sist. 2 A common carrier is not bound to
carry as a passenger one whose presence
would cause discomfort or injury 10 other
or who would destroy the
carrier S property. 3. ~ passenger cannot
recover from a common carrier the amount
OF damages suffered by the negligence of a
lGw-psssenger.
1864, Arnoid VS.. Brande. Ripley c. C. Az
Reinhard, 1.-THE husband owes
the wife the duty of supporting and main
tanning her, and she may enforce this duty
piedging his credit to others who sup
ply her with necessafies.
1850. Aetna Insurance Company VS..
Strout. Lawrence c.. G. Affirmed. Gavin.
Ill. Where an insurance policy is made d
proper exhibit to a complaint for q recov->