The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-17
Criminal Court.
Supreme Court.

supreme Court.
1864. Rusk VS. State Montgomery c. c.
venue in criminal case, where the punish
rnent for the offense charged is less than the
death penalty, is left to the sound dis
erection of the trial court and unless clearly
abused the ruling will not be disturbed on
appeal. 2 The statute gives any person
charged with a felony the right to chal-
lenge any member of the grand jury before
IL Is sworn, and on failure to exercise the
right at the proper time any objection is
waived. 3. The law does not favor pleas
in abatement and no presumption will be
INDUCED i'm their favor: they must be GER
tain and must state ever fact necessary
to uphold their sufficienc,. T. Within the
contemplation of Section 16i9 r. S. 1894.
jurisdiction over crime exists where any
one or more of its substantive and material
parts are committed. 8. A confession of
the defendant reduced to writing is prima
facie competent evidence TO introduce by
the State. when the writing fails to disclose
any facts showing the confession was not
of q witness is aSsailed the inquiry relates
to his character at the time of the trial or
some period reasonably near thereto.
1883. G.. a. T.. K. r. Co. VS.. Thomas.
Huntington 9. -. Reversed Howard, j.
In an action against a railroad company
for damages caused by collision at its
crossing, the complaint must show that
the plaintiff is free from fault, and that the
action of the defendant was the proximate
cause of the injury.
1915. City of Terre Haute VS.. E. &. T. H.
Railway Company. Vigo &. {. Reversed.
Monks. J.-Section 1923, r. S. 1894. gives
cities the power to lay out. extend and open
streets and alleys across the right of way
or any other lands of railroad company.
,. The appointment of the city commits
sioners by the circuit judge Is not a strict
judicial act. nor does ii belong TO either
the executive or legislative department of
Article III of the Constitution.
1886. Douglas VS.. Whitaker. Owen c. c..
Appellate Court.
1885, Taylor VS.. Lehman. Allen S. c.
such S When sPeea
be disregarded. 2. A jury exhausts its
power when il returns a special verdict.
the general verdict. 3 A promise TO re-
pair. made after a lease is entered into. is
mere nudum pactum and no liability eX-
lists for a failure on the part of the land
lord to make such repairs. 4. A promise
to repair made by a landlord TO his tenant
during the tenancy and without considera-
ton other than such tenancy, cannot be
2l2i Martin vs. Bott Washington C. c.
Dismissed Wiley. il. A certiorari will
be denied when the record properly pre-,
is asked. 2. Money paid into court by a
guardian on his final report does not con-
due by the sen court 3 Where money is ac
cepted by the plaintiff on the judgment re-
covered he valves the right OF appeal
1888. Hinesley VS.. Sheets. Benton {. {.
Motion to dismiss overruled. Comstock. j.
The filing of bill in equity TO set aside
"a judgment for fraud, which relief was de-
MED. will not deprive the Judgment debtor
of his right to appeal from the judgment in
the original action.
2O99 Insurance Company VS.. koontZ.
Madison S C. Reversed. Henley. il A
verdict and judgment will not cure a de-
fectiVe complaint when the question is hrSt
raised by the assignment in this court. il
the ayerment of "a substantive fact has. by
the pleader been entirely omitted there
from. "A complaint for the collection OF
a fire insurance policy must allege owner
ship of the property
22H. Darnell VS. Keller. Marion S. G..
Appellants petition for rehearing.