The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-18
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.


1928. State -ex rel. Goodman VS.. Halter.
Knox c. G. Reversed. Monks, Jan &C
ton brought by the prosecuting attorney
to recover the statutory penalty for giving
in a false list of taxable property to the
assessor is one brought in the interest of
the state; and the statute of limitations
does not bar the state from recovery there
on. And under the tax laws of 1881 and 1891
each of the years the taxpayer gives
false or fraudulent list, schedule. or state
ment, or willfully failed or refused to deliver
to the assessor list of taxable property
he is required to list, he is liable to a sep
arate and distinct penalty, and the state
has a separate cause of action for each
year; and where the action is brought to
recover penalties for more than one year,
the cause of action for each year should,
under the code, be stated in separate par
agraph of complaint. 2 1t is the policy OF
the state to subject all private property to
taxation except only such as is held for
municipal, educational, literary, scientific,
religious or charitable purposes as may be
especially exempted by law. g. When the
statute of limitations is pleaded in an ac-
ton where the state is plaintiff, the court
must determine from an examination of the
entire record whether the action seeks to
enforce public right in the interest of the
public a private right Tor the benefit
Of a private person
1917. Sutherland VS.. c., c., c. & st.
l.. Railway Company. Marion $. &. At
flrmed. McCabe, J.-If party makes &
demand for special verdict the opposite
not been complied with. 2. When person
attempts to cross a railroad track in front
of moving train with full knowledge of
the presence of such train, and miscalcu-
lates in the distance or speed of the train
and is thereby injured, her negligence is
the cause of the injury and the railroad
company is not liable therefor
1905. Placard VS.. Scholi. Madison G. c.
Affirmed. Hackney il. A. writ of manda-
mus is q command iSSuin~ from court of
law of competent jurisdiction in the name
of the state or sovereign directed to some
inferior court, officer, corporation or per-
son requiring them to do some particular
thing therein specified, and which pertains
to their Office or duty. 2. An appeal
should be presented to this court upon the
merits of the case.
lS115 Winstanley VS. Breyfogle. Monroe
c. G. Motion to dismiss deferred until final
Appellate Court.
21S9. Barnes VS.. Pelham Delaware c. c..
Affirmed. Robinson, il. When the suffi-
cheney Of the complaint is questioned on APP
peal, the record must disclose such plead
ing. 2. In making transcript the pro-
ceedings should be arranged in the order
in which they occurred in the lower court.
The transcript ought to be an accurate and
methodical history of the cause as it pro-
gressed in the lower court.
2O05. Weser VS.. Welty. Upton G. c. At
firmed. Wiley, il. Where a defendant
pleads stifcation in answer to a charge of
false imprisonment and in the same para
graph denies each and every allegation of
the complaint not herein admitted, unless
the answer is sufficient tie theory of
justification It viii fail, as the general de-
NAL must controvert every material ale
dressed. z. A policeman is a peace officer
and IS authorized to arrest and detain any
person violating any law of this State until
legal warrant can be obtained. 3. In a
suit for false Imprisonment, where the de-
feudant Ga policeman AYERS in his answer
that the plaintiff violated in the presence
and view of defendant criminal statute.
such facts show that the defendant was au-
thorized to make an arrest.
1907. Bollenbocher VS.. Wishnand. Monroe
c. c. Transferred to Supreme Court.
SuDerior Court.
Room 2-Lawson NJ Harvey, Judge.
Olive j. Layden VS.. The p, c., c. & St.
l.. Railway Company ct al; damages. De-
mand, $4,000. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Alpha A. Davis VS.. Robert T. Davis; di-
vorce Finding for plaintiff and decree
granting divorce. Judgment against de-
PENDANT for costs
New Suits Filed.
Louise E. Wuensch VS.. George Wuensch;
suit for divorce. Superior Court, Room e.
Martha Oline VS.. Nettie McKahan ct al. ;
suit to quiet title. Superior Court Room g.
@. +. Wittmer Lumber Company VS.. Lii
liam Il. Lane ct al; mechanics lien. Supe-
rior Court, Room /.
Artemus N. Hadley VS.. Joseph H. Clark
ct al suit to foreclose mortgage. Superior
Court, Room 8.