The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-10-19
THE COURT RECORD.
Superior Court.

Room John L.. McMaSter, Judge
Minnie Gates VS.. Joseph Gates; divorce.
Granted.
William Hildridge VS.. Caroline Hildridge;
divorce. Continued.
Albert Williams VS.. Matte Williams; d.
vorce. Granted.
Frank Prunk VS.. Estella Prunk; divorce.
Granted.
Clarence Hedge VS.. Sarah Hedge; divorce.
Decree granted defendent on cross COM
plant.
William Esler VS.. Herman Schafer; me-
chanic's lien. Dismissed and costs paid.
Room Edgar A. Brown. Judge Pro Tenn.
Alphima Didion VS.. Martin Didion; di-
Vorce. Decree granted plaintiff.
May Wilson VS.. Charles Wilson,; annul-
if. @i1
James Bradbury VS.. Dickson & Talbot;
damages. Trial by jury. Jury returned
Adam Metzler vs.. Dora Metzler; divorce.
Decree granted plaintiff.
Room 3-Pliny w. Bartholomew, Judge.
William Smith VS.. Myrtle Smith; divorce.
Decree granted plaintiff.
Ulysses Lacey VS.. Frank Newly ct al;
mechanics lien. Finding for plaintiff for
$21. As.
Maggie Hibbs VS.. Elmer E. Hibbs; di-
vorce. Continued to Oct. 10.
Henry Walker VS.. Edward c. Egan ct al.
Judgment of 1892. 81 for plaintiff.
Circuit Court.
Lawson NJ. Harvey, Judge Pro Tenn.
Mary Canatsy ct al. VS.. julius Schleuter;
habeas corpus. Evidence heard and taken
under Amusement.
New Suits Filed.
State Bank of Indiana VS.. Henry D. Mar
tin; on note. Room. l.
Thomas II. Osborne VS.. Mary G. Hunt;
Charles W. Ward VS.. Mary Ward; di-
Anna McNurray VS.. Athen R. MeMurray;
divorce. Room 3.
William Brester VS.. Anna Vetter ct al;
mechanics lien. Room 2.
David J. Fletcher VS.. Charles Helbing ct
al; mechanics lien. Room 3.
Notes of Recent Decisions.
The right of a parent to advise a son to sep
arate from his wife is sustained in Tucker vs..
vice is given through proper parental motives
for the sons welfare and happiness instead of
through malice.
The sale of a folding bed is held, in White VS..
Cakes Me.), 80 L. r.. A 592, to imply no war
one who did not manufacture it or know that it
was dangerous and the buyer had full oppor-
tunity OF inspection.
The refusal to sell soda water to eolored per
sons in a drug store is held. in Cecil. vs.. Green
Qll.), 80 L. r. A. 566, not to be a violation of a
civil rights act respecting places of public ac-
commodation and amusement since these do
not include a drug store.
The building of a subway under the streets of
a city TO be leased to a street-railway company
is held, in Prince VS.. Croker CMass.), 30 l.. r.
A. go, to be for the public use and within the
it and sanction taxation for it.
Payment of a claim for Injuries to an EN-
and Steel Company CWis.), 50 /. r.. A. 1888, to
be not necessary as a condition precedent to re-
covery of insurance to the employer for what he
shall become liable" to employees.
The appointment of women TO be notaries pub
lie is held. in Opinion of the Justices (Mass.), 81
L. r. A. $50, TO be beyond the authority of the
Legislature under the constitutional provision
that notaries shall be appointed lin the same
manner as judicial officers are appointed
The constitutional right of men to contract
with each other is held, in Harding VS.. People
UlI). 80 L. r. A. 445, TO be violated by a law
which prevents miners from contracting as to the
mode of ascertaining the weight OF the coal
mined by them or the amount due them in any
manner which is mutually satisfactory.
The use of salt on railroad switches to keep
them free from ice, whereby cattle are attracted
to the switch and killed by trains, is held, in
Kirk VS.. Norfolk & Western Railroad Company
CW. Va). 80 L. r. A. 46 to be lawful, and not
to constitute negligence, when such use of salt
is shown to be necessary to protect the lives of
passengers and others on trains.
A statute prohibiting unauthorized bodies of
men to associate together as a military organiZa-
ton or to drill and parade with arms in cities
and towns is held. is Com. VS.. Murray (Mass.),
tutionaI right TO keep and bear arms for the
common defense. and the exemption therefrom OF
certain independent military bodies or organiza-
lions is held not to grant a special privilege in
violation of the rights of others.
The loss of trunks carried by a railroad COM
pany under mistaken superstition that they be
long to passengers who have tickets over its
road, when in fact the owners of the trunks
Travelled by another route, supposing their trunks
were rightly checked. is held, in Beers VS.. Boston
& a. r. Company Comm. 80 l.. r. A. 535, to
create no liability on the part of the railroad
fall of a railroad bridge in respect to which the
company was negligent.