The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-12

the influence of fear, the court having de-
cided it to be adm ssible.
DRAINAGE - REOPENING CASE - RE-
MONSTRANCE
1888 Marion c. c. Haefgen VS.. Harness
ct al Affirmed McCRhe. Ill. A land
owner through whuse land a public ditch
was contracted under the act approved
April 6, 1885 cannot have the case reopened
three years after the construction OF the
ditch was finally ordered and long after
the ultch was completed IN order TO have
auultiohal damages assessed TO his land be-
cause or injuries which he did not expect
would result. 2. A reInoEst1ance IN ditch
proceeding IS in the nature of defense.
winch, II not nterposed at the proper time,
VIII not avail a person after final judgment
has been entered.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-STREET-CA
FARES-LOCAL SPECIAL LAWS.
1876 Marion G. c, Indianapolis VS. Navin.
car fare law acts 1891, Page POD does not
impair the obligation Of any valid contract
lis had authority to make 2 1t is not such
local legislation as is forbidden by the
constitution. 3. 1t is not a special act
creating corporation within the meaning
of Section Is of Article II of the Consti-
tuition. f. Where local laws are not ex-
pressIy forbidden by the Constitution they
may be enacted whenever the Legislature
deems it advisable. 3. The Legislature has
power in all cases to regulate the tolls TO
carrier, unless that power has been sur
rendered by clear and unmistakable lam
guage contained in the company's charter
8. A law concerning the fares TO be collect
ed by street-railroad companies need not
operate uniformly on all street railroads in
the State in order to be general. 1t is suf-
icient if it operates alike on ali such com
panies under the same circumstances and
conditions.
Mines ct al. Petition for rehearing over
ruled.
Appellate Court.
RAILROAD TICKET-EJECTION FROM
TRAIN-DAMAGES.
2S09. Tippecanoe S. c. l., n. A. G. Z.
Railway Company VS. Wright Reversed.
Robinson il. A railroad ticket is con-
tract between the purchaser and the rail-
road, and both parties are bound by all
stipulatlons therein which not contrary
to law. p condition in a return ticket
sold at a special reduced rate of fare that
the holder will present it TO the railroad
company's agent at his place of destina-
ton and sign 1t in the agents presence be-
fore presenting II for return passage is rea-
sonable and such condition as the parties
have right to put into the contract, and
until it is complied with the company is
not bound to honor the return coupon.
3. Where a passenger holding such a ticket
went on to another station and returned.
the station at which he should have had
his ticket stamped. after the station agent
had gone home for the night. according to
his usual habits, and, not finding the agent
got on the train again and presented the
unsigned and unstamped coupon for his re-
turn passage and was elected by the con-
ductor. he cannot recover damages for be-
ing put off the train.
COURT-JURISDICT
PRACTICE
2064 Monroe c. c. Elkins VS.. Bennett.
Appeal dismissed Black, il. An appeal
will not lie to the Appellate Court from a
judgment for $1l0 and costs in case origi-
mating before justice of the peace, as its
jurisdiction in such cases is limited by
statute to where the amount IN con-
troversy exclusive Of interest and costs,
exceeds $50. 2. Where no exception was
saved to the alleged erroneous ruling on a
motion to modify Judgment and the record
does not contain a bill of exceptions nor
show that one was filed 70 question can be
considered relating thereto. s. No notice
can be taken OF what purports to be a bill
of exceptions which accompanies, but is not
a part of nor attached to the record, and
which bears no file mark and is not referred
to in any way in the record.
PRACTICE = EVIDENCE
RECORD.
21SS. Howard c. c. Shirk VS.. Simpson ct
al. Affirmed. Black, J.-Where the repor-
ter's original long-hand manuscript of the
evidence and objections and exceptions at
the trial is not shown to have been filed in
the clerks office before being made part
of the bill of exceptions it does not con-
stitute a part of the record.
.2129. Wells c. c., Thomas VS.. Walmer ct
al. Petition for rehearing overruled
1914. Jay c. C. Dunkirk VS.. Wallace.
Rehearing granted.
superior court.
Room l.
Jennie Millison VS.. Theophilus Mnlison;
divorce. Court finds for plaintiff, at her
cost, and allows plaintiff custody of child
Room 2--Lawson M. Harvey, Judge.
Winfred B. Holton VS.. Willard w, Hub
bard damages. Judgment against DEFEND
Louise ALBRIGHT VS.. William Mohs; dam
ages. Judgment against defendant for 5000
divorce. Dismissed for want of prosecu-
Robert E. Thomas VS.. William Snead;
lien. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
+. p. Reed ct al vs. Lavina ID. Athon;
judgment. Judgment against defendant for
$500.
The wheelman's Company VS.. Charles
10y ct al. notes. Judgment against de-
PENDANT 10y for $12793
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Elizabeth A Paddock VS.. Mary E. Pad
dock; for receiver Finding for cross-com-
plainant Walter j. Hubbard, for $4,3lS12,
and in favor of plaintiff on her complaint
forT, 81, 1211o and costs. Receiver ordered to
s. S. Rhodes VS.. John C. Grof's estate.
Judgment against estate for 1926 and costs.
H. S. Cunningham VS. G.. G.. Grady's es-
tate. Struck from docket, having been paid
and adjusted.
oliver H. Caron administrator, VS. Sarah
McCoy's estate. Additional evidence heard.
New Suits Filed.
Samuel Bates VS.. Clara Bates; suit for di-
vorce. Superior Court Room /.
Herbert II. Tharp vs.. Harvey N. Trims.
Superior Govt Room 2.
Emma Mclean vs. Jesse E. Loves ct al;
suit on note. Superior Court. Room 2.
Cornelius D. Browder ct al. VS.. VIM. IT.
Brown improvement lien. Superior Court.
Room 2.
Gustavus A. wurgler, tr VS.. Anna Burk;
suit for damages. Superior Court, Room 3.
Capital National Bank VS.. Arthur b.
Grover; suit on note. Superior Court,
Room l.
Daniel w. Ashley VS.. Isaac Milk; me-
chanic's lien. Superior Court Room l.
Anna Quigley VS.. Aetna Insurance Come
pany; suit on policy. Superior Court,
Room g.
Lucinda Buckner VS.. George Buckner ct
al; suit for support. Superior Court.
Room 2.
Lorenz Schmidt ct al VS.. Christian H.
Schoerhusen ct al; suit to foreclose mort
gage. Superior Court Room 3.
After serious illness Hoods Sarsaparilla
has wonderful building up power. 1t puriies
the blood and restores perfect health.