The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-01-27
THE COURT
Superior Court,

THE COURT
Superior Court.
Room 1-John l.. McMaster. Judge.
Nancy Reed VS.. Citizens Street-raiIroad
Company: damages. Jury out.
Room 2-Lawson NJ. Harvey, Judge.
Allen jennings VS.. Caleb S. Denny ct al.
damage. On trial by jury.
Room 3-Vinson Carter. Judge.
Sarah Shackleford VS.. Margaret E. Roy;
Criminal Court.
]. F. McCray.. Judge.
State VS.. Charles Ludwig receiving stolen
goods. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
State of Indiana, Stella j. Dunn VS.. Eli
Ritter. Finding and udgment VS.. defendant
for $40 and costs.
Anna NJ. Dearman VS.. the American Ac-
cident Company. of Louisville, Ky. Dis
missed by plaintiff. Judgment VS.. plaintiff
New suits Filed.
Statehouse Building Association VS..
Michael Seyfried ct al: foreclosure. Room 2.
Warren G. Bennett VS.. Clarence Emerich
ct p at on note. Room l. !.
al; foreclosure. Room ?.
James Vannatta VS.. WALTON .. Never ct
al; replevin. Room 2.
The Blake-street Savings and Loan AS
ISOLATION VS.. Amanda Z. Albert ct al. fore
closure. Room J..
Mary r; Myers VS.. James p. Foster ct
al; foreclosure. Room l..
Statehouse Dime Association VS.. John De
Mahr: foreclosure. Room 8.
vorce. Room 8.
James NJ. Erganbright VS.. Robert s.
Hall ct al; on note. Room 3.
Supreme Court.
1909. City of Evansville VS.. Miller. Van
uerourg :. I. Affirmed. Jordan, G.. 1.-THE
common cornell of tho nftxv - I--,.xEtl
passed an ordinance which provided that
any building that shall be partially
destroyed by fire . ' and shall no suf-
Tered by the owner thereof to remain in
such condition after being notified by the
department OF public works to remove. re-
pair or rebuild the same. shall constitute a
nuisance" Held. hat such action of the
Common Council was void for the ordinance
to declare that a nuisance which
In fact under the law cannot be SO con-
sldered. and therefore transcribed the pow
er with which it was invested.
Its96. sutherland vs., Mckinney. Wash
ington c. c. Reversed. Monks, J.-Where
a remonstrance is filed against an applica-
ton liquor license. as provided by Section 8
OF the act approved March IL, 1880 tacts
of the time for filing a remonstrance.
list. Gas Company VS.. Baker. Wayne G.
G.. Reversed. Howard, il. A gas COM
pany owes "a duty to all persons VINO might
be injured by the gas, TO use ordinary and
adequate care in delivering the substance TO
- IL 10 pau I'LL
the part of "A gas company to allow gas TO
leak from a pipe into a residence after 1t
has had its attention called TO the leakage
and has sent its agent to repair the de-
fective pipe, and the agent assures the oc-
cupantS of the building that everything
was all right" and it is not contributory
negligence on the part of such persons TO
rely on the assurance of the agent. who
understands the proper mode OF controlling
gas. 3. A person injured cannot recover
damages for the shortening of his life
caused by the wrongful act OF another.
Appellate Court.
1889. Insurance Company VS.. Liggett. Mar
shall c. c. Affirmed. Comstock, c. il.
Forfeitures are not favored in law and
conduct of parties as will produce a waiver
thereof if possible. 2. The right TO declare
a forfeiture for the failure to perform a
condition in a policy or bylaw of an in
surance company may be waived and the
waiver manifested as well by conduct as by
words. 8. Where a bylaw OF a mutual fire
insurance company provides that any per-
son failing TO pay his distributiVe share of
any assessment shall forfeit his insurance
during such delinquency. such forfeiture is
waived when the company with knowledge
Of the delinquency and after the destruction
OF the property collects from the insured
the delinquent assessments.
1911. Dilty VS.. Spake. Marion ;. G. Re-
versed. Wiley, il. This court will not re-
verse a judgment on account of allowing an
amendment TO the pleading unless II affirm
atively appears from the record that such
amendment was prejudicial to the adverse
party. and that the trial court abused its
discretion. 2. A party must recover secun-
dun a~llegata ct probate, or not at all.
2067. kirshbaum VS.: Insurance Company.
Jay c.. c. Affirmed. Robinson. il. A per-
son that is a stockholder in a corporation
whose property is insured may be allowed
TO become a party to a suit TO collect an
insurance policy when he shows that the
policy in suit belongs to him, but by a mis-
take of the insurance company 1t was made
to the plaintiff. of which fact he was ignor-
ant until the property was destroyed by
fire. 2. Under a general denial a defendant
may introduce any proof that will meet
what the plaintiff is bound to prove In order
to recover. 3. When a finding is within the
issues presented by the pleadings and is
supported by the evidence ii cannot be con-
trary to law. 4. In laying the foundation
for the impeachment of a witness the time
and place of the conversation and the per
son with whom it was held should be speci-
fed with sufficient dehniteness 10 ehapie the
witness clearly to identify 1t.
221S. Marshall VS.. Seamen. Marion 5. {.
Dismissed.
C. c. Appellee petition for rehearing.