The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-15

authorizing a sheriff to collect his fees in
advance, he is bound TO execute every legal
process delivered to him before ne Is en-
titled to demand and receive the fees tnere-
for
1855 Pearce VS.. Dill. Montgomery c. c.
Affirmed. Jordan, il. When any property
or fund.- in its original state. has once been
impressed with the character of a trust, no
subsequent change of its original form or
condition can divest Ii of its trust character
and so long as 1t is capable of being identl-
fed the beneficiary thereof may pur-
into which ii may have been changed, p.o-
vided it has not gone into the possession or
a bona-fide purchaser without notice. 2 me
abuse of trust fund by a trustee conferS
no right upon him, nor upon those who
claim in privity with him. and II the fund
has been misapplied, or CONCERTED into otner
property, or mixed with the funds or the
trustee or of some one claiming through
him can be traced and Identified, courts VIII
attribute the ownership TO the cestui cue
trust and will separate the trust fund from
the others with which 1t has been conf
mingled and restore it to the beneficiary en-
titled to receive it. 3. Where man was aus
thorixed to draw checks upon the money of
his wife for her use or in her business he
has no right to draw checks upon sucn
him while dealing Tin Margins and in
case such checks are drawn ana nonoreo
by the bank and the money credited to the ne
the aid of the equity powers OF the court,
may have the money restored TO her creepy.
1891 Leach VS.. Matt'x. Upton Z. z. Al
frmed McCabe jim order for an original
bill of exceptions to be made a part of the
record it must be confined to the slngie once
of exhibiting the report of the vidence and
the matters directly and pr .aO<,~ pertain
fS46S Torpey VS.. Henchey. Laporte c. c.
Publication of notice ordered
Appellate Court.
25O9 State of Indiana VS., Mathis. Warren
C. c. Reversed. Comstock, 1.-THE question
presented in this case is the same III princl-
pie as involved in State VS.. MAINS oe-
cided this term
1927 Cowen VS.. Henika. Rush G: G. At
firmed. Robinson, c.. i'll. A trust In per-
sonal property may be created by parol. 2.
1t is the duty of a trustee to invest the
trust fund in such manner that 1t shan be
safe and yield reasonable rate OF income me
tate is money the trustee is chargeaDle Win
interest. 3. Where decedent OWED rent Ior
the years 1882 to 1884, approximately, claim
filed against his estate in 1895 is barred by
the statute of limitations. =, :,
Reversed. Wiley, jim an action for dam
ages caused by the wrongful acts of the
defendant upon the person of the plalntlIs
permanent injury for which damages are
asked $3.50
parly. Upton C. c. Rehearing granted.
25l5 zimmerman VS.. Gaumer. Cass =. y.
Transferred to Supreme Court.
2Ol6 Anderson Glass Company vs. :,d Brak se-
man. Madison c. C. Appellant petitions Tor
ieA'e"' ms Superior Court.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
ID X. Wilson VS. Consolidated Gas Trust
Company; damage. On trial by jury. Third
day -
damage. Dismissed. Judgment VS.. plaintiff
loi o Criminal Court.
John F. McCray, Judge.
The State VS. Henry Romhurg; provoke
Defendants motion for new tr1al taken
under advisement.
The State vs. George Moore; profanity.
Appeal from Justice OF the peace. Deiea a
ants motion for new trial taken unocS
Amusement -.
The State VS. Herman Passehl; assault
and battery TO commit -lurder. Arraigned
and plea of not guilty.
The State vs.. Henry Reager; assault ana
battery. Appeal from City Court. Nollied
by the State.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge
Herman Passehl VS.. L., N, A & c. Rail-
way COMPANY; damages. Dismissed by
plaintiff. Judgment plaintiff for costs
Louis Wyler ct al. vs. Henry Deltcn. &C.
count Judgment VS.. Deitch by agreement
for 1924 and costs.
State ex rel Dora M. Hardin VS.. Leander
Hardin. Fraudulent marriage. On trial by
jury ,,
James M. Dodd VS.. the unknown heirs of
Chester c.. Bartholomew; suit to quiet
Charles A. johnson VS.. Emma w. War
ing; suit on account Superior Court,
Patrick II. Wells VS.. Maurice D. Cleary;
Charles e. Holloway VS.. Indiana Savings
and Investment Company; suit TO quiet
title. Circuit Court.
Herman Mcmillan VS.. Nancy La Roche;