The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-06
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

lo1oO EleCIlOn commissioners vs. State eX
rel; Sides. Gibson G. c. Affirmed. How
ard, il. Under the election law of 1889 the
boards of election commissioners are bound
to place upon the ballot the names of regu-
larly nominated candidates under the title
and device of the party making the nominal
ton. q 1t is the business of the election
commissioners to print the election tickets
as they are given to them by those who
made the nominations
1891 indianapolis Brewing Company vs.
Claypool Marion c. c. Reversed Nc
purported to establish department of pub
lie parks in cities having more than LOG, 900
unconstitutional as it is in violation of the
last clause of Section 2 of Article 10 of the
state Constitution (R. S. 1894, Sec. 224)
which provides that 1.-THE General Assembly
shall not create any office the tenure of
which shall be longer than four years
Sections l and being void for such reason,
the balance of the act is imperative be-
cause there are no instrumentalities left
with which to carry them into effect. 2. The
mere fact that the officers under said act
Were to serve without compensation does
not relieve the act from the constitutional
inhibition.
Appellate Court.
2242. c., c., G. & st. L. Railway Company
VS. Dugan Marion S. c. Reversed Com
stock il pleading must proceed upon
a definite theory and be good on that theory
or it will not be good at ALL 2. Each theory
must be embodied in separate paragraph,
and no more than one theory can be pleaded
in a single paragraph. 3. AS only one theory
can be contained in single paragraph, the
court must construe the pleading most
strongly against the pleader and determine
the theory from the prominent or leading
allegations of the pleading. 4. Conclusions
in special verdict will be disregarded. o.
Facts must be stated upon which the jury
base the inference found, and the facts
found must support The theory of the COM
plant or judgment must be given in favor
of defendant; and where the action sounds
in tort the facts found must show breach
of duty; general statements are insufficient
1896. Gambrinis Stock Company VS.. Cron-
enberger Grant C. c. Affirmed. Henley,
J.-Where the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain the lower court is the only ques-
ton argued by appellant the other assign
ments are waived, and if there was some
evidence fairly tending to support the find
ing and judgment of the lower court the
Judgment will not be disturbed on appeal
1920. Stout VS.. Harlem. Posey c. c. Mo-
ton to advance overruled Black, jim
application to advance cause in this court
the motion must show the grounds upon
which it is asked and be verified by the par
ties making the motion or their attorneys.
Superior Court.
Room 2-Lawson NJ. Harvey. Judge.
Willard w. Hubbard VS. Taylor Roberts
ct al; foreclosure. Dismissal as to de-
PENDANT. ]. E. Grubbs, and Judgment
Thomas Hockensmith VS.. Grant Glidewell
ct al: note Judgment against defendant
for $125.33 and costs.
Gerhard Ittenbach VS. John Fergen ct al.
Finding and deere of foreclosure against de-
PENDANTS and judgment for $2Oi6.5O and
costs
Room 3-vinson Carter, Judge.
Hartford Saving and Loan Investment
Company VS.. Jessie e. Reynolds; fore
closure. Dismissed and costs paid
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen. Judge
Mamie White ct al. vs.. James l.. Barnett,
trustee Submitted to court. Evidence
heard Finding for plaintiff and judgment
correcting deed and record.
Criminal Court.
John F. McCray Judge.
The State of Indiana VS.. Jacob Gueter;
assault and battery. Appeal from 70
lice Court. Defendant filed motion for new
trial.
The State of Indiana VS.. George Connors;
burglary and grand larceny Tried by court.
Evidence partially heard. Cause continued.
New Suits Filed.
James A. Van fleet VS. Daniel M Wanda
walker ct al: suit on contract. superior
Court, Room l.
mechanics lien. Superior Court Room 2.
Dwight w. Williamson ct al. VS.. Cleve-
land Cincinnati, Chicago 4 st. Louis Rail
way Company; suit in reple7in. Circuit
Court
account. Superior Court, Room l.
Jacob A. Bogert ct al. VS.. Benjamin f.
Cline; suit for rent. Superior Court,
Vesanna White VS. the Elmer E. Nichols
Company; suit for damages. Superior
Court, Room 3.
Andrew J. Kahn VS.. William ]. Harring-
ton; suit on judgment Superior Court.
Room 9.
Storage Company suit for damages. SUI
perior Court Room 2